Tell me why - - another Battle Creek Morgan question

RichieURich

Tell me why this Battle Creek Morgan is in an NGC MS-65 * holder:
Another BC Morgan

clw54

Maybe the graders had already graded a few hundred of the things are were getting fatigued?

goose3

<< I think the star was probably given for one of two reasons... the beauty of the coins, and the beauty of the pedigree. >>

TennesseeDave

I think all of the BattleCreek Morgans with a numerical grade received the star from NGC.

tradedollarnut

I think that if I never see another Battle Creek Morgan thread that I will have still seen far far too many!

seateddime

not a star coin IMO

ColonialCoinUnion

Its very shiny!

BobaFett72

apparently if you stuff the graders pockets with $20 bills you can get NGC to grade a STAR* on just about anything lol.

dizzyfoxx

Like goose said. The star was given for both the coins themselves as well as the importance of the pedigree. Not quite sure why the silly little laughing emoticon was used.
Anyone who knows anything about nicely toned coins and important pedigrees, at least has a shred of respect for this great collection of Morgans. I for one only have a shred of respect for this collection. For the most part, they are over-hyped and over exaggerated here on the forum, and boy oh boy I wish the promotion of these worthless silver tokens would just simply stop.

clw54

I thought a pedigree was based on past ownership. This pedigree seems to be based on a submission.

We don't even know where the dang things came from.

clarkbar04

<< <i>and boy oh boy I wish the promotion of these worthless silver tokens would just simply stop. >>



x2

Coxe

BC is not an important pedigree. Many really nice toned Morgans are among the BC hoard, but a pedigree is a term reserved for a carefully assembled and held collection which BC is not. Likewise, Redfield is not a pedigree, just a source of hoarded coins.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>BC is not an important pedigree. Many really nice toned Morgans are among the BC hoard, but a pedigree is a term reserved for a carefully assembled and held collection which BC is not. Likewise, Redfield is not a pedigree, just a source of hoarded coins. >>



Perhaps not a pedigree by its' purist definition, but certainly worthy of the label, "Battle Creek Collection". And for the most part, a very impressive and important collection.

Coxe

Agreed. An impressive overall hoard worth noting. Far better quality on average than Redfield and similar, though the Continental Bank one rivals it in some ways. I wouldn't go as far as to say that they could be consistently traded with a reliable premium sight-unseen by virtue of being BC attributed though. Many are nothing spectacular while some are truly incredible.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>Agreed. An impressive overall hoard worth noting. Far better quality on average than Redfield and similar, though the Continental Bank one rivals it in some ways. I wouldn't go as far as to say that they could be consistently traded with a reliable premium sight-unseen by virtue of being BC attributed though. Many are nothing spectacular while some are truly incredible. >>



Well put and fairly said.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

that coin is not very special!!!

SFDukie

<< <i>I thought a pedigree was based on past ownership. This pedigree seems to be based on a submission.

We don't even know where the dang things came from. >>


Yup. Eliasberg is a pedigree. This is a hoard.
That isn't neccessarily bad-GSA was a hoard, too. But I wish folks would stop redefining the word. Its very different than a collection created over the course of years by a careful collector with a discerning eye.
Don

Myqqy

How very ngc of them.... and my evening is now complete with this deserving battle crick star morgan...

WTCG

Because the coin in question has some areas of very attractive toning.

BRdude

whatever marketing ploy they can come up with, they will