Opinions on this 1880-S Morgan Dollar.

TorinoCobra71

This Morgan Dollar was recently BODYBAGGED at PCGS for cleaning. Here is the funny part. It was previously in A PCGS HOLDER. I was trying to get a PL designation as the coin has nice mirrors on both sides:





Opinions and/or Comments welcome

TorinoCobra71

tradedollarnut

The major TPG's silently net grade problem classic coins all the time. I would guess that a significant percentage of coins that collectors believe are undergraded in TPG holders have been silently net graded for a problem the collector doesn't recognize. You crack it - you take your chances.

messydesk

Werd. Also, forget about trying to upgrade to PL or DMPL designations from PCGS at the moment. Ain't gonna happen.

TorinoCobra71

<< <i>Werd. Also, forget about trying to upgrade to PL or DMPL designations from PCGS at the moment. Ain't gonna happen. >>



Yeah, that is THE TRUTH. I recently Submitted 3 No Brainer PL Morgans, One got bagged and the other two lost a point and the PL designation. Has PCGS stopped designating Morgans with the PL/DMPL designation? I wonder if Mr. Hall would invite me for a pres. review?!?!?

TorinoCobra71

GoldenEyeNumismatics

It's happened to me before. I had an '87-S Morgan in PCGS MS65 that I thought was a shot 6. Cracked it out and sent it in. Bagged for Altered Surfaces. Tried it again. Bagged again for the same reason. Since then the best I've been able to do is get in it NGC 64.

DennisH

That's why I never crack out PCGS coins. Ever.

Anytime I have something I think could upgrade, it goes in via Regrade service.
Anytime I have something I think could be PL or DMPL, it goes in via Variety Review service.

I haven't had a bodybag yet.

Coxe

I have never cracked a crossover or regrade and don't think I have suffered for it one bit. I suppose an AU58 slider regrade might be tempting though as making MS would be otherwise difficult. I heard of one person cracking a PL to try to get DMPL. Now that is suicide.

Stuart

TorinoCobra71: Very interesting thread, and thanks for sharing with us. The conclusions that I draw from these types of experiences, is that one still has to carefully evaluate all aspects of the coin during the decision process of whether or not to purchase a coin.

I've seen many Bust Halves in MS-62 holders (Top 2 TPGS's in both old & new holders), that in my personal grading opinion were nice high-eye appealing AU-58 sliders,which I like to call AU-59.5's, (or even AU-62's).

I have also seen numerous Morgan Dollars (Top 2 TPGS's in both old & new holders) graded MS-62 that I felt were AU coins. One person's interpretation of light wispy appearing bagmarks may be another's interpretation of light circulation marks.

When I first started collecting coins back in the early 1970's, over a decade before plastic slabs and Third Party Grading, there was not a big commercial difference between an AU and MS Morgan Dollar (same for many Type Coins -- except for the key coins).

Today there is an increased emphasis on grade (not necessarily quality and eye appeal), a large commercial difference between an AU and MS coin, and even huge commercial price differences between Unc, BU, Choice BU and Gem BU grades (notice that I intentionally did not use numerics).

Based on the above it is important for the intelligent collector to carefully evaluate all aspects of the coin during the purchase decision process. I totally agree with the sage old advice of buy the coin, not the holder.

We also must take into consideration that the above-mentioned grade-sensitive pricing, provides the opportunity and commercial incentive for people to resubmit coins which they feel are undergraded (or borderline coins) to try for the next higher grade. This has created a grade-infation situation, where there is an unnatural distribution of coins which may grade in either the lower quartile or even lower decile of a specific grade. (i.e. having an uneven skewed population distribution of an issue within a specific grade, reather than what would be a naturally occuring standard bell curve distribution).

In my opinion this is why I commonly find original undipped and unprocessed MS-63 & 64 Morgan Dollars, which have much greater eye appeal than MS-65 & 66 coins which have been dipped & processed to catch the higher grade. I tend to focus more on original mint luster, and strong strike than to overly focus on contact marks, expecially when contact marks are located in non-prime focal point areas, and when they are less harsh. Other than for key coins, there is less commercial incentive to upgrade an MS-63 Morgan Dollar to MS-64, and even MS-64 to MS-65, while upgrading MS-65 to MS-66, and MS-66 to MS-67, is commercially attractive.

I liked it better when we used the terms: AU, Unc, BU, Choice BU and Gem BU.

I'd appreciate others' thoughts on the above. Thanks for reading!!

dizzlecc

Ouch,

Thanks for sharing. I have a 1890-s that looks prooflike in a ms63 holder. I was thinking of cracking it out and resubmitting but I will have to think twice about it now.

The thing that really bites is that you could probably resubmit and get the 63pl you were searching for, it might help to send it through a dealer who works with pcgs.

WTCG

You should always choose wisely when considering coins to crack out and resubmit for grading. The level of cleaning on any given coin can be considered acceptable one day and too harsh to be graded another day.

Although pictures are never suitable for detailed grading, the picture seems to show a coin that was cleaned and not deserving of a PL designation.

ricko

Chasing the grading rainbow gets expensive.... I would hope people add the cost of the services to their inventory so they know how much is invested in each coin.... Personally, I think way too much money is pissed away on resubmittals... Cheers, RickO

JeremyDie1

Looks cleaned and not even close to PL. According to the pictures.

Coxe

<< <i>Chasing the grading rainbow gets expensive.... I would hope people add the cost of the services to their inventory so they know how much is invested in each coin.... Personally, I think way too much money is pissed away on resubmittals... Cheers, RickO >>



Absolutely. That's why I do relatively few crossovers too. There's nothing at all wrong with coins in the other top guys' plastic (or even raw for that matter). The registry game has added so much to the cost of coins this way. I suppose it makes sense to try for regrades and crosses when you go to sell because of simple economics in this market though. Nonetheless, the crackouts are stupid. I have gotten more upgrades than downgrades in crossovers in slabs, not cracked, just by selecting the right coins. Haven't done a lot fo them but enough to see that it works fine.

MadMarty

morgannut2

<< <i>Werd. Also, forget about trying to upgrade to PL or DMPL designations from PCGS at the moment. Ain't gonna happen. >>



...This is so true. IMHO PCGS isn't just using stricter standards on PL/DMPL, they have changed their own definitions

by increasing the required reflectivity distances. A quantitatively measured definition should NOT change over time!!

If it was 6 inches in 2001, it's 6 inches or more in 20007 (Except at PCGS!).

Coxe

People are also starting to forget about what prooflike is supposed to be all about. If you look through enough Morgan rolls, you know a prooflike when you see it. Nobody needs to tell you that it isn't because reflectivity is only 4.5". It has proof-ish character. That is what I am looking for for my set. I have a few that I will call prooflike all day long, notably an 1895-O, that are holdered without the designation. The registry lunacy disqualifies all of that though. Some people don't collect coins, just slabs and tags.