Home U.S. Coin Forum

1885 CC Morgan-NewP- GTG---- conservation service candidate? (Grades in. Posted pg 3)

nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
Been fortunate enough to have been able to make some coin purchases recently. Picked up this Morgan at a local B&M. It's housed in an old PCGS "rattler". The Mirrors are amazing on this coin and I feel like I picked it up at a very fair price. The photos don't do it justice! I picked up some of those Ikea goosneck LED lamps and was playing around with them last night. I think these lights will be excellent for smaller coins but need some diffusion for these bigger coins! The "milk spots" are much more evident in the photos than in hand... They're there though!!! If removed, would these leave something more offensive in their place?

Question is....
Might these be an easy fix with a quick dip or some acetone?
I'm thinking the conservation/reconsideration service might be in order here.... Any thoughts on this from those with more experience?

The coin comes from a very old collection I have first crack at reviewing and picking through.... very lucky and happy at this opportunityimage
Thank you for your comments and consideration.
image
image

Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

«1

Comments

  • jmj3esqjmj3esq Posts: 5,421
    MS63PL
  • CMCARTCMCART Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭
    I like this CC Looks great !!! image
    Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865)
    5$ bills are WOW with the numbers - wanted:
    02121809
    04151865
    Wanted - Flipper notes with the numbers 6-9 or 0-6-9 ON 1$ 2$ 5$ 10$ 20$
    Wanted - 10$ Sereis 2013 - fancy Serial Numbers
  • Steve27Steve27 Posts: 13,267 ✭✭✭
    I'm not sure what that haze is, but I would always try the least invasive technique first (i.e. acetone and then dip if required).
    "It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson


  • A bit on the fence on this one, between MS63PL or MS64PL, so I'll go MS63+PL.

    rodorr
  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,515 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good luck and post pics after whatever you do.

    bobimage
    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • guitarwesguitarwes Posts: 9,237 ✭✭✭
    Would hate to lose the Rattler holder but ultimately it's about the coin. I don't think a quick dip in acetone would harm it any. This would probably be the lease invasive 1st step to see if it takes the haze off.

    I'm jealous that you get first shot at an old collection.
    @ Elite CNC Routing & Woodworks on Facebook. Check out my work.
    Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
  • Type2Type2 Posts: 13,985 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Very nice pic and coin but you will need to go with the dip to save her, Wash her off well befor sending in. Is this the only coin you picked up did you look for any Vam? image


    Hoard the keys.
  • would putting the coin in some very hot water with aluminum foil in the bottom with a little baking soda hurt the coin because it works great for silver jewelry.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't think those spots are coming off.
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    First try the acetone..... followed by an alcohol rinse and follow that with a hot water rinse....Cheers, RickO
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Acetone will do nothing with those spots. A simple acid "dip" (eg. EZ-Est, Jewel Luster) will work well. Dilute your solution and have fun. Rinse well please. Ain't rocket scienceimage

    Nothing against Restoration Service, but this is not worth paying for in this instance. My guess - you'll end up with 64DMPL, which would be a lovely score.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Easily a 4 and looks DMPL.

    Anybody calling this a three, please sell me your MS63 raw morgans with cheeks like that, thanks! >>



    Yep, you nailed it!
    I'm thinking if cleaned up, it should fit into the DMPL category... The cameo and mirrors take it there IMO...
    Thanks for your help everyone. I guess it worthwhile to crack it myself and resubmit...
    Sorry to those that might be attached to old holders.
    This is the first Morgan from the large collection. A complete set of Morgans is on the way along. I've picked up a hanful of coins from other series though it's the Morgans and early stuff I'm really looking forward to. Been through the Buffs and didn't score much.. Most were lower grade than my current set. I was hoping for upgrades. I'll be getting them with the Morgans most likely.
    imageimage

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.

    Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many.
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.

    Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many. >>



    In your experience then, I should not crack this coin, clean it up and resubmit it then?
    Might I be better off sending it in for their reconsideration/conservation service then?

    Thanks for your input.

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.

    Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many. >>



    Bearing in mind that all generalizations are bad, have you any thoughts on this specific coin. Do you consider it a possible exception to your "rule"?

    If it was one of those 80-CC's with super cameo contrast and highly striated fields I might agree with your "analysis". 85-CC's sometimes come monster DMPL
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.

    Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.


    image
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well, it's cracked and cleaned up.... Acetone didn't do the job so a diluted dip was in order.
    What's done is done.....
    We'll see what comes of it. No turning back now!
    The cartwheel visualized on my photos is as much a product of the lighting as anything else. I was using some very hard little Ikea lamps.
    I could easily diffuse the lights and you wouldn't see any cartwheel. Just white or black depending on the positioning.
    The milk spots cleaned up nicely though.

    Thanks for all the input.
    I'll keep you posted as to the outcome.... I sure hope it doesn't come back a 63!

    What's life without a little risk?image

    Edited to add....
    THAT sure looks a LOT nicer than a 63!!!! You might want to crack that sucker out and resubmit it! Those cheeks are clean!!!

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Put up some new pics! I would love to see it now.

    Also, tell me about it on the 63! Typical tough date syndrome.

    Cheers!
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Put up some new pics! I would love to see it now.

    Also, tell me about it on the 63! Typical tough date syndrome

    Cheers! >>



    This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.

    I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.

    As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference.

    Edited to add: I have been appropriately chastised for the ignorance displayed in the last assertion.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.

    Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.


    image >>



    Looks like it needs a dipimage:

    You could sell it to me at CDN 63DMPL Ask. But it would just be another case of an unscrupulous dealer trying to screw somebody.

    Perhaps the OP would be willing to offer you some conservation advice. . image
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>
    This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.

    I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.

    As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference. >>



    I was referring to the 86-S DMPL, an impossible date, especially S/S.

    I respectfully disagree about the no DMPL Rattlers, I own many! image
  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,793 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dip it, wrap it in a taco bell napkin, put it in the window sill for a year , then flip it.
  • i prefer taco johns napkins
  • Cam40Cam40 Posts: 8,146
    If I owned it, I`d call it a near gem 64 DMPL
    no matter what the insert said.
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Dip it, wrap it in a taco bell napkin, put it in the window sill for a year , then flip it. >>



    Love it!!! You've got the GREATEST sense of humor!!!

    So here's a shot of the obverse post "conservation"...
    Cheek looks a little more scratched up than before.
    Cleaned up nicely though..... Lighting is different so don't get too wrapped up in comparisons here.
    image
    Mirror angle shot is before conservation measures.....
    image

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • lkeigwinlkeigwin Posts: 16,885 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Acetone will do nothing with those spots. A simple acid "dip" (eg. EZ-Est, Jewel Luster) will work well. Dilute your solution and have fun. Rinse well please. Ain't rocket scienceimage

    Nothing against Restoration Service, but this is not worth paying for in this instance. My guess - you'll end up with 64DMPL, which would be a lovely score. >>

    Yup. Listen here.
    Lance.
  • guitarwesguitarwes Posts: 9,237 ✭✭✭
    Looks MUCHO better now after the personal conservation. I think it's got a shot at 64DMPL. Send that sucka in and keep us informed of the results.
    @ Elite CNC Routing & Woodworks on Facebook. Check out my work.
    Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I am hoping for the best for you, but would not be surprised to see 63+ or 64, no designation at all.

  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for the good wishes!
    If I get a 63 and no designation, I'm cracking it again and putting it in my Dansco!

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,793 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Joking aside, the CC mint is one of my favorites, along with Territotiral , and Southern Branch Mint coins. My belief is that most avid collectors of U.S. Coins have a certain affinity to Carson City Morgans, in particular. Thanks for sharing and recognizing the humor.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Thanks for the good wishes!
    If I get a 63 and no designation, I'm cracking it again and putting it in my Dansco! >>




    image

    I know, it is not an easy task to get PL designations, and DMPL requires the Heavens to open up and a voice to exclaim, DMPL, I approve!
  • ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>

    << <i>
    This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.

    I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.

    As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference. >>



    I was referring to the 86-S DMPL, an impossible date, especially S/S.

    I respectfully disagree about the no DMPL Rattlers, I own many! image >>

    >>



    I respectfully agree that I am wrong on thisimage I must have cracked them out without noticing. imageimage I can't believe how much money I left on the table in 1987image

    I also agree that 86-S is damn near impossible (I've never seen one and Bruce Amspacher is sadly gone, so I can't mine his encyclopedic wisdom on Morgans). If I miss an S/S you can pick me off at no premium over "market" for the regular "S". Great coin, BTW. You got screwed. Thanks for a look at a coin I would love to see in-hand.

    Sadly, I never looked at anything but depth and cameo (0.5 sec) and (pathetically) didn't even notice the date on yours pictured. Could my scrambled brain have somehow said 86-CC? image I am tempted to go back to a previous sig-line "Often wrong, never in doubt"

    But I have no idea whatsoever how an 86-S is relevant to a thread on an 85-CC.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • sparky64sparky64 Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Col. J.
    When people started to refute your comments, I was going to tell them to simmer down and look at your sig line ("Often wrong, never in doubt")......but you changed it on us. image

    "If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"

    My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress

  • CMCARTCMCART Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭


    << <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.

    Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.


    image >>




    My CC : image



    image
    image
    Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865)
    5$ bills are WOW with the numbers - wanted:
    02121809
    04151865
    Wanted - Flipper notes with the numbers 6-9 or 0-6-9 ON 1$ 2$ 5$ 10$ 20$
    Wanted - 10$ Sereis 2013 - fancy Serial Numbers
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So, it's been nearly one full year and I finally got around to sending this baby in with my coupon submission for eight secure plus slabs.
    Thought I'd send out a little reminder for some to review before sharing the outcome.

    Any new guesses?

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • ModCrewmanModCrewman Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'll say 64 PL...not feeling a DMPL on that one; though I wouldn't be shocked. image
  • garrynotgarrynot Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭
    I will say 63 DMPL
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A year later. WOW!

    I'll stick with the 64 and still hope for a PL for you!
  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
    64PL.
    Too many flow lines in fields for DMPL.
    When in doubt, don't.
  • blu62vetteblu62vette Posts: 11,900 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.

    Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.


    image >>



    What does this coin look like in hand? The page is so overly saturated I cant tell how deep the mirrors are.
    http://www.bluccphotos.com" target="new">BluCC Photos Shows for onsite imaging: Nov Baltimore, FUN, Long Beach http://www.facebook.com/bluccphotos" target="new">BluCC on Facebook
  • AngryTurtleAngryTurtle Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭


    << <i>
    Bearing in mind that all generalizations are bad, image...

    << <i>





    << <i>So here's a shot of the obverse post "conservation"...
    Cheek looks a little more scratched up than before. >>



    Do you think that the cheek had some strategically placed foreign substance that led to the field discoloration?

    My guess 64 PL shot DMPL
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The mirrors are amazing.
    I guess PCGS agreed:

    Grade Here

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Congrats!
    When in doubt, don't.
  • Wabbit2313Wabbit2313 Posts: 7,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    SWEET!
  • nwcoastnwcoast Posts: 2,826 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thank you all....

    A pretty sweet jump there!

    And I have to thank ColonelJessup for helping to give me the budge and push to take the steps and risk in cracking it.
    I did include the old green 64PL label with the coin on submission- as a bit of history and reminder, that it had been determined at least a PL historically, and so they might adjust their pops accordingly.

    image

    Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014

  • NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 10,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wow nice work! Good eye there.image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file