PCGS MS 65+-Moose Morgan

bestclser1

AnkurJ

Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus.

LeeBone

<< <i>Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>



Color.... gotta be the color

stealer

<< <i>But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>


He's only showed half the coin so far

braddick

Love it Lloyd, but not a Moose IMHO.
Close, but I'd need to see a bit more vibrancy overall and the tan in the upper 11:00 kills that status, for me.

AnkurJ

<< <i>

<< <i>Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>



Color.... gotta be the color >>



So the plus is like the NGC star? I'm sorry but I think that coin is a 64 from all the chatter on the cheek.

Elcontador

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>



Color.... gotta be the color >>



So the plus is like the NGC star? I'm sorry but I think that coin is a 64 from all the chatter on the cheek. >>



Ankur - Think the cheek chatter is acceptable on an 1885 CC. Didn't see the reverse of the coin, so I don't know where it was minted.

LeeBone

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>



Color.... gotta be the color >>



So the plus is like the NGC star? I'm sorry but I think that coin is a 64 from all the chatter on the cheek. >>



Ankur - Think the cheek chatter is acceptable on an 1885 CC. Didn't see the reverse of the coin, so I don't know where it was minted. >>



Great point.

My guess would be P-Mint with that strike. O-Mint would be weaker over the ear unless that`s another reason for the plus. CC-Mint would be, well,... a very nice coin to have with that color!

lkeigwin

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Very pretty! But I don't see the reason for a plus. >>



Color.... gotta be the color >>



So the plus is like the NGC star? I'm sorry but I think that coin is a 64 from all the chatter on the cheek. >>

Color plays a small part, no doubt. But a plus is supposed to be high for the grade.

That "chatter" is probably minor scuffs.

At 65+ I would expect the reverse to be pristine.
Lance.

lasvegasteddy

look a moose...git a cam an shoot it...
sweet

AuroraBorealis

Pretty O mint bestclsr...

AB

bestclser1

This puppy has luster like an S mint!

LeeBone

Nice O-Mint strike.

golden

I rarely disagree with a PCGS grade but I will with this one. A 64 on this one would be better.

blu62vette

<< <i>Nice O-Mint strike. >>



The strikes on these years are fine.

stman

Looks like a decent Morgan. For some reason me thinks if someone else posted this and asked if it was a "Moose" you wouldn't be singing it's praise. Just an observation.

DennisH

I'm not wild about color, and I think that without it this one could just as easily have been a 64. I find the marks on the front of the cheek and back near the jaw distracting.

stman

I've seen toned Morgans with marks like this in 66 holders...... sticker mill approved also.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>I rarely disagree with a PCGS grade but I will with this one. A 64 on this one would be better. >>


I see absolutely no reason that coin would grade under gem. The "chatter" on the cheek appears to be
very shallow. If it's got excellent luster, the plus seems quite appropriate.

ElmerFusterpuck

I remember seeing that coin on Teletrade. If it's like a recent toner I got, it will look much better in hand. Would be interesting to get a Tru-View or a better photo of that coin.

DoubleEagle59

It's a 64 that got bumped to a 65 because of the toning.

Personally, I disagree with this grading philosophy.

I'd rather grade it as an ms64. It would bring very good money because of its beauty, but it's still a 64.

To prove my point, if that coin was dipped, I'd bet there would be no way a grade of 65 would result.

Lehigh96

<< <i>I've seen toned Morgans with marks like this in 66 holders...... sticker mill approved also. >>



I agree completely and have no idea what coin the majority of the people in this thread are looking at. It is certainly a gem and I dare anyone criticizing the term moose to post a coin with better color. The color on that coin is better than any Morgan I own, and I own a lot of them.

bestclser1

<< <i>

<< <i>I've seen toned Morgans with marks like this in 66 holders...... sticker mill approved also. >>



I agree completely and have no idea what coin the majority of the people in this thread are looking at. It is certainly a gem and I dare anyone criticizing the term moose to post a coin with better color. The color on that coin is better than any Morgan I own, and I own a lot of them. >>

I have owned a few Moose toned Morganss in my time,and when you blow up a 67 about 20X its size,it can look like a 64 as well,if you dont see it in hand you really shouldnt grade from pictures,but you folks can say 64 all day long,when you see the coin,you will pick your tongue up off the floor,but hey,what do i know as much as the toned Morgan experts.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>

<< <i>I've seen toned Morgans with marks like this in 66 holders...... sticker mill approved also. >>



I agree completely and have no idea what coin the majority of the people in this thread are looking at. It is certainly a gem and I dare anyone criticizing the term moose to post a coin with better color. The color on that coin is better than any Morgan I own, and I own a lot of them. >>




I couldn't agree more and I don't begrudge folks their opinions as mine isn't always popular or correct but in this case folks really need to learn how to not micro grade from an enlarged images. Not to offend but the comments that the coin looks like a 64 seem off base....in my opinion I also don't think you guys can get a sense of just how colorful a coin like this is in hand as the picture is not doing it any favors from a luster standpoint even though I have seen much worse images.

So in a nutshell board members should learn how to better judge image quality and not micro grade......yeah right that's going to happen when pigs fly lol

braddick

^Shane, you haven't seen the new Gieco commercial?! Pigs do fly!

Lehigh96

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I've seen toned Morgans with marks like this in 66 holders...... sticker mill approved also. >>



I agree completely and have no idea what coin the majority of the people in this thread are looking at. It is certainly a gem and I dare anyone criticizing the term moose to post a coin with better color. The color on that coin is better than any Morgan I own, and I own a lot of them. >>




I couldn't agree more and I don't begrudge folks their opinions as mine isn't always popular or correct but in this case folks really need to learn how to not micro grade from an enlarged images. Not to offend but the comments that the coin looks like a 64 seem off base....in my opinion I also don't think you guys can get a sense of just how colorful a coin like this is in hand as the picture is not doing it any favors from a luster standpoint even though I have seen much worse images.

So in a nutshell board members should learn how to better judge image quality and not micro grade......yeah right that's going to happen when pigs fly lol >>



Shane, I actually warn people about this in all of my E-Bay listings. Here is what is included in my listings:

All of my E-Bay offerings are photographed by myself, and great care is taken to ensure that the photo accurately reflects the actual appearance of the coin. It is important to note that when you view an oversized photograph of a coin, the flaws become magnified in much the same way as if you were viewing the coin under a loupe. For this reason, I include a small photo in all of my listing so that the viewer can get an accurate depiction of the coin's appearance in hand without a loupe.

kryptonitecomics

Perfect Lehigh...


braddick I has seen the commercial but I thought he was zip lining and not flying...lol

CMCART

Very pretty

raycyca

It was just on TT. Here's the twin the next night: People also said NO moose. Stated no way, gold is fugly. HAVE to see it in hand. Many TT photos look dark but are different when you get the coin back home.

bestclser1

<< <i>It was just on TT. Here's the twin the next night: People also said NO moose. Stated no way, gold is fugly. HAVE to see it in hand. Many TT photos look dark but are different when you get the coin back home.


>>

Sorry Ray,but the reason you paid so much is i wanted the pair,as they were also in concesutive serial numbers graded by PCGS as perhaps two ends to a roll,with bag toning put on the inside?Hmmmmmm.

coinman23885

<< <i>Color plays a small part, no doubt. But a plus is supposed to be high for the grade. >>



Read PCGS's eye appeal disclaimer on the PCGS Photograde webpage; they acknowledge up to a full point bonus over the "technical" grade for exceptional eye appeal including color. I wouldn't exactly consider this difference small.

P.S. I am fine with this coin's stated grade and the application of the term "moose." I like the coin very much.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>

<< <i>Color plays a small part, no doubt. But a plus is supposed to be high for the grade. >>



Read PCGS's eye appeal disclaimer on the PCGS Photograde webpage; they acknowledge up to a full point bonus over the "technical" grade for exceptional eye appeal including color. I wouldn't exactly consider this difference small.

P.S. I am fine with this coin's stated grade and the application of the term "moose." I like the coin very much. >>



Since it is a common 85-O Morgan, I wouldn't get that excited about whether the grade is 64 or 65. That color would bring a strong premium even on a 62.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>It was just on TT. Here's the twin the next night: People also said NO moose. Stated no way, gold is fugly. HAVE to see it in hand. Many TT photos look dark but are different when you get the coin back home.


>>



It's almost always a crapshoot with TT pix. Just when you think you got it figgered out, you haven't got it figgered out. Sometimes their pics can be pretty good. The reverse has too much darkness to be anywhere near a moosedom. The obverse is beyond help no matter what. Could be different in hand, but I'd have a hard time plunking down strong $$$ for it. There aint many meese on TeleTrade.

deltadimeman

plus-minus, 64 or 65, moose or goose, the fact is that i really like it ! i would offer you $32 because i need it for my collection ?

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>plus-minus, 64 or 65, moose or goose, the fact is that i really like it ! i would offer you $32 because i need it for my collection ? >>




Sorry Larry...I already offered $33 so your SOL

braddick

First coin's pretty. The second coin is a hot mess.