<< <i>Lack of profit potential? A nice PCGS PO1 Morgan will go for more than a MS65 common date by a good bit. Typically cost less from dealers too.
Lowballs are a legit collecting enterprise, and it is, imho, far more difficult to collect problem free PO1's than it is to collect MS65's or better. >>
Please show us examples.....particularly an 1893-s dollar fetching MS65 money in PO-1.
While we all understand the enterprise is legitimate it doesn't mean MS65's and PO-1's both can't have their place. For all the effort in trying to hunt down a lone PO-1 (to make $100-$150 as you suggest) most dealers and collectors could probably sift through raw MS63's and MS64's and find coins they can send in in large quantities that would make MS65 grades. The latter enterprise has been the most profitable by far as it has been going on for the past 28 years making a lot of money for people who can snag those upgrades. Every coin show has them. Doesn't sound like you'll even find even a single slabbable PCGS PO-1 if you spent time at 10 or even 100 coins shows. This is still a relatively new undertaking too. You're comparing 28 yrs of TPG data to something that is basically brand new. With 290 examples of Morgan dollars in PO-01 I don't consider that to be a small number for something fairly new, especially if most of the demand is going to be coming from type coin collectors. What was that number 5 or 10 years ago? How fast is it growing yoy?
<< <i>A buffing wheel? Really? PCGS shows no mercy when body-bagging coins it thinks didn't come by their wear honestly. >>
Probably right. But it doesn't take "forever" to tone down a coin that was buffed down from say AG to Good to a PO-1. There is a huge potential supply of Fair-02 to Good-4 coins out there. So there's no machine that could be utilized to simulate a person's greasy hand and a coin rubbing in it or inside their pockets? Doesn't seem that hard an engineering issue to me. Though those brains are probably being put to use to make counterfeits or sell problem coins as problem-free at the higher grade levels (VF-unc). If PCGS has made 290 PO-1's. And say they resulted in profits of $150 each, that's a speciality market of $43,500. It would be hard to find a smaller market of coins inside the broader US markets. Even nic-a-dated buffalo nickels are probably a > $100K/yr market. Cull type coins? That's probably in the $Tens of MILL. Seems like a lot of effort by a lot of people to make $43,000. I understand the collecting enterprise part of it....just not the financial. Fine if you run across one by pure chance you buy it for $20-$30. There's little downside. I bought an 1838 RE half a few years back in perfect FR-02 for $20. How could you lose? I just happened to run across it while looking at a box of raw busties. I bought some XF/AU coins too. But I'm not going to spend my time looking through bags of circ Morgans to find that single PO-1. The odds are probably better of looking through bags of old mercs and finding an overdate.
There are also 970 Fair-02's sitting right behind the 290 PO-1's ready to go into someone's pant's pocket when the time is right....assuming they aren't already there. Not many Morgans are making it to the smelter these days at $21/oz silver. But should we see the $30-$50/oz and higher levels down the road, you can bet a pile of junker Morgans will start showing up again in bags to be melted. A lot of fresh PO-01 and FR-02 coins will show up....unlike the past few years. If coin doctors can simulate dishonest toning without too much effort, why should dishonest wear be any harder? Wear the coin down "unnaturally" to the AG/FR level or so then apply more natural wear to take down the last little bit. Even if you don't make a coin that is passable to the TPG, you can probably still sell these at shows at "all natural po-boyz" and make some decent money. Just don't keep showing up with a fresh dozen of these at every coin show you do...lol.
Have you ever personally had experience trying this, or pockert-wearing down a coin to any target grade? If not, then please consider that you are expressing opinions about a subject you don't actually know about.
The second coin on that list above (1921) is obviously cleaned and a bit bright. That tells me cleaned/buffed and played with coins have some hope here. I'd almost welcome the chance to put some through the buffing wheel but I also know I can use that same time at most coins shows and do better just buying coins I already know.
The last coin (1884) looks a lot nice than the other PO-1's suggesting to me that grade dis-inflation is at work here too. I'd bet that coin if sent back more than once would get a FR-02 grade. High end for the grade is not what you want here.
OK. So rather than a $43K market this might be as large as $100K-$120K. Is there a difference in that?
The PO-1 pops across the various type coins is rather interesting.
The Morgans lead the pack by far at 290. I didn't look at every type. But the type coins in slug grade are surely a lot scarcer than the Morgans. Morgans apparently have a good makeup (as do the early halves) to maintain a date while they are being worn down to a nub.
83 seated halves. 45 Lib nickels. 25 type 1 SLQ's (identifibable w/o dates?) 21 seated dimes. 15 seated quarters. 12 barber quarters. 10 Indian cents. 9 Merc dimes. 8 capped bust halves. 7 capped bust quarters. 5 barber halves. 4 shield nickels. 2 two cent pieces. 2 Buff nickels (variety 2's from 1913-1938). 2 Lincolns with wheat back reverse 1 barber dime. 0 Type 2 SLQ's.
Some of these are too low to really explain imo other than there's not a lot of interest yet. Really, there's only 1 problem-free slug Barber dime in the world? Those coins circulated for up to 70 years. I was still finding them in my change in the early 1960's. With the protected dates on the type 2 SLQ's I'm surprised none of them were worn down enough to qualify.
The Morgan dates don't seem to have much logic to low or higher numbers. Why are the commoner dates like 79-0, 80, 81, 82-s, 86 only have 1 specimen? The 79-cc has 4. Wouldn't have expected that. 80-s and 81-s have 2 each. The 1921 Philly with 20, that I would have expected. The 1893-s has 0 in PO-1. But, there are 24 FR-02 sitting in back up waiting to take that vaulted step down. Interesting, there are only 3 dates in the entire series with more FR-02's than the 93-s (the 91-0 at 26, the 1921 at 27, and the 78-cc at 47...along with 6 PO-1 78-cc's). I can explain the 93-s but the others, not so much. The numbers suggest to me there could be a lot more coins coming. With 5600 Morgans graded from AG to Good 6, most of these probably weren't targeted for Low Ball sets when they were submitted. God only knows why they went in. A few thousand dumb people over the course of 2.7 MILL Morgans submitted to PCGS (0.2%) could be just that.
Anyone who has searched for and then tried grade "PO01"s realized there is fine line between an FR02 and a no grade because there is not enough detail to determine the date or mintmark (including if a P that there is no mintmark) ... and then there is the aspect of "A lot can go wrong on the way down"- scratches, rim dings, etc. that lead to a a no grade ...
<< <i>Anyone who has searched for and then tried grade "PO-01"s realized there is fine line between an FR02 and a no grade because there is not enough detail to determine the date or mintmark (including if a P that there is no mintmark) ... and then there is the aspect of "A lot can go wrong on the way down"- scratches, rim dings, etc. that lead to a a no grade ... >>
We've had the same argument in reverse on say MS67 Morgans vs. MS68's. That fine difference in a couple of frost breaks or a single bag mark and you're looking at $700 instead of $4,000. It's more than another factor of 7X price to go from 68 to 69. A FR-02 Morgan is a $15-$20 coin normally. So 7X or more that for the line to PO-01 would be similar to the 67 to 68 "up factor." The word has been out for decades about upgrading nice MS67's to MS68's. I still don't think the word is out to the general collecting public that PO-01's are worth $200-$500 each based on date. I certainly didn't know that and I'm slightly more informed than a non-collector. I'll have to ask one of my dealer friends who knows about every angle in the coin market. If he hasn't made one of these things yet, or not even tried, then there's a huge gap here. More info to come later.
<< <i>With 5600 Morgans graded from AG to Good 6, most of these probably weren't targeted for Low Ball sets when they were submitted. God only knows why they went in. A few thousand dumb people over the course of 2.7 MILL Morgans submitted to PCGS (0.2%) could be just that. >>
I submitted two of them, both 1895-S, Good 4 and Good 6. I didn't consider it dumb then and don't now. A large majority of the 5600 AG-G Morgans submitted for grading were premium dates. The 1893-S alone accounted for 861 of them.
You will probably never see an 1893-s PO-01. For it to be a PO-01, the mark inside the T of Liberty would be gone.
You point to common MS dates that have low Pop on the PO-01 side is because those years and mint had very little circulating. The 85-CC for example has only 1 PO-01 and that coin is worth more than my AU58 CAC 85-CC.
Morgan Everyman Set Member, Society of Silver Dollar Collectors. Looking for PCGS AU58+ 1901-P, 1896-O, & 1894-O
While lowball sets may not be up everyone's alley, putting together a set like this is tough. I've seen several of the coins in this collection, and actually attributed an 1878 7TF in PO1 as a scarce VAM 168 (go figure).
<< <i>So you have never seen a PO01 graded Morgan dollar unless on some auction site or images posted on the registry. Is that a fair statement? My challenge to you is very simple. Find a uncommon date - mint Morgan dollar that PCGS will grade a PO01 and then you'll have something to talk about. The first graded PO01 Morgan dollar was the 1886-P in a OGH dating back to 1992-1993. You have absolutely no concept of the history of some of those coins nor how many grading battles were fought over some of those coins. While you sit back admiring the collection set(s) that you find pleasure in try putting yourself into the other guy's shoes for a years time at getting those coins graded. With all the issues that can disqualify a low ball coin especially for a PO01 it must be pretty frustrating. Several comments on this forum are from collectors whose coins are being displayed in that set. They all knew how difficult the challenge they took was to them to get as far as they did. Until you start a low ball set and actually get serious about not wanting to finish in last and make the set the best you can ease up and take a breath. As I recall 34 coins are one of a kind coins. That fact tells me this collector knows his stuff. Consider the coins in the set and who may have held what coin at what time in history. This is a educational journey and a time capsule of coins destined to be lost forever. >>
So you're saying that looking at detailed blown up images of a PO-01 is world's apart from seeing a near slug in-hand? I'm not qualified to evaluate the lowest condition Morgan dollars because I've never tried to build a set of them? I have to think that I've held a number of PO-01 coins in my hand from early collecting years in the 1960's to 1970's when I went through thousands of low grade silver coins from the 1890's to 1920's....including Morgans. More than likely I've held a PO-01 Morgan in my hand and never thought anything of it back then....other than it was worth approx 0.65 ounces of silver. I've never held a PCGS MS69 Morgan dollar in hand either. Does that mean if today I ran across a technical MS69 for real (whether raw or undergraded in a 68 slab) that I wouldn't recognize that it was different or "special?" Is grading a PO-01 seated quarter any different from a PO-01 Morgan? I know I've held some PO-01 seated quarters in my hands over the years.
In going through the PCGS pops I made it clear above that the commoner dates pretty much accounted for most of the 290 PO-01 coins. It's a fact. There appears to be no bias towards better dates. The PCGS price guide lists a typical Good 04 Morgan at $29 to $32 for the majority of the dates in the series. Even the ones worth a "hefty" $39 in Good 04 are still common. By definition, in lower circ grades the bulk of the series is basically common. As far as the PCGS price guide, it lists the majority of the dates of these 290 PO-01 coins in the $50-$85 price range. That's odd considering all the links above show coins that went for >$200 each including an 1884 which books for $60. Is the price guide out to lunch or were those bidders? I'm looking at POP and Pricing data and it doesn't correspond to what the specialists are saying above. A single auction result or even a couple don't necessarily set the overall market price. I understand that for CC Morgans that basically didn't circulate, they are difficult to find in very low grades. And the CC mint is a collector favorite....hence the higher prices. I also understand why Morgans that basically all came from bags released in the 1960's would also be very difficult to find in PO-1 (88-s, 93-s, 95-s, 96-0, 03-0, 03-s, 88-0 DDO). Take these 7 dates away plus the CC mints and you're left with the bulk of the Morgan dollar series where the price guide lists a PO-01 at <$100. I didn't write the price guide (or pop reports), just reporting what PCGS published. The Carson City PO-01's are priced about the same as F-VF specimens of those dates. One exception is the 1889-cc which is priced as a Good 6. That's all no surprise. Same general comment for those other 7 dates. They would be priced similarly to F-VF coins. That doesn't look to be a huge stretch in value. I don't see anything here that disagrees with what I suggested in my earlier posts. None of this means that I can't appreciate a set of PO-01 coins and the effort it took to find them.
I think PCGS will be very careful about making the first 1893-s dollar in PO-01. Fwiw a FR02 is priced at $1800 vs. a G-04 at $2250. It remains to be seen if a PO-01 would actually exceed the price of a G-06 (ie similar to the 89-cc pricing). I fully understand the difficulty in completing such a set in PO-01/FR-02. My comments are directed at the current "official" pricing of the series and what the printed data shows. Get the data changed and I'll change my opinion. The next step might be to take a few of these PO-01's, crack them out, and send them back in. How many would get bagged the next time around or make FR-02? I doubt we're going to hear from anyone that tried multiple times on the same coin to holder it as a PO-01. Anyone not in the business of actively making PO-01's could certainly go out and buy a PO-01 to see what it does on the next 2-3 submissions.
I reviewed the PCGS coin facts grading photos of all PO-01/FR-02 bust, barber, seated, and Morgan coinage. A slam dunk PO-01 apparently should have all the peripheral legends and stars gone with only a faint central design and readable date/MM remaining. I don't find the standards as photographed particularly consistent among bust, barber and seated coins. Same comment when I tossed in SLQ's, Mercs, and Walkers. Some of the PO-01's show peripheral details while others don't. The PCGS Morgan PO-01 photo is the most obliterated of them all showing nothing. That's a "gem" PO-01. But, that's NOT consistent with the five PO-01 auctions links a few posts back. None of those coins have all the stars and legends removed like the standard photo. None are PO-1's if that photo is the standard. Some are even a match for the FR-02 Morgan photo. Nearly all of those auction linked PO-01 Morgans have more outer details than my seated quarter mentioned below. If every Morgan had to be as flat as the PCGS photo, I doubt you could ever read the date. And the date on the PCGS PO-01 photo does not appear to be legible. Maybe it's a variety that's legible based on the tail feathers??? Fwiw, the 5 auctions/prices linked above are all 2-3 years old except for one from 2014.
I had a random slug seated quarter in the house from one of my last coin shop visits (an 1843-0 lg 0). Curiously, it meets the PO-01 "details" criteria for a number of the PCGS seated and bust photos, but not quite the seated quarter photo. Like the Morgan photo, the seated quarter photo is far more obliterated than say the half dollar. My coin would meet the half dollar standard but not the quarter. This all assumes these photos showing a single discrete grade point represent the entire PO-01 spectrum (they probably don't any more than a single MS67 Morgan photo represents all MS67's). Half of star #8 still remains on my 25c and that could be a sticking point to me. No reverse lettering remains. The wear has worn well into the eagle's outline. Very original and smooth coin too. It must have a had a pretty high rim to allow nearly all the date to remain. I bought the coin because of the date....not the low ball grade. Seems to be every bit a PO-01 coin and I made no special effort to buy it as such. Purely a random occurrence. Now I've recently held a PO-01 coin in my hand and examined it under 10X magnification. In looking at the PO-01 SLQ standard photos they look just like every slug SLQ I handled back in the 1960's and 1970's. All you have to do is to be able to read part of the date. The more I dig into the PO-01 grade the more irregularities I seem to run into. I'd like to see this low ball coin exhibit as well.
<< <i>The more I dig into the PO-01 grade the more irregularities I run into. >>
Very much so. The usual theory is that PCGS just doesn't see that many lowball coins and have a difficult time being consistent. The serious lowball collectors seem to have more consistent standards themselves. There are lots of head scratchers on both the overgraded and undergraded side.
Unless this has changed in the recent past, I believe there has only been a single Type 2 SLQ graded PO01. The slightest hint of a date usually means it is AG or FR.
<< <i>What I am asking is have you ever gotten a RAW Morgan dollar graded PO01 from PCGS? That is the final examination grade to all this. Culls and RAW PO01 wanna-bes is here-say and speculation all day long. When the rubber meets the road do you have a graded PO01 Morgan coin you can call your own that from its discovery through its final grade you were the lone owner? >>
I haven't made a cradle to slab PO-01 Morgan. And why should it be limited to a Morgan since any other other regular US series is much rarer than the Morgan? Considering that at most 1 out of 5 Morgans linked above fully meets the published PCGS photo standards, why bother? I'm not going to feel like I did anything if a legit FR-02 gets into a PO-01 holder like those others. Sorry, I would never use a TPG submission as "proof" of a grade. I've been on both ends of that game. Some coins took 3-6 submissions to make the higher grade. You don't think that same thing will be going on with the PO-01's due to the heavy pressure to get that first or second coin of a particular date to advance one's set? In reviewing the descriptions of the some of the Low Ball Morgan registry sets I did see in one instance where one coin was tried multiple times: A Morgan dollar that always had the look of a PO01 but was properly graded on this last trip. . This game should apply to anyone as it's the unknown supply of coins out there that is the real issue, not who is making the coin. I'll make an effort to sift through what coins are local to me to see what I can come up with. Might be fun to make a PO-01 Morgan. This 1843 "slug-O" quarter will make a visit as well since the coin is probably worth the price of submission just as a scarce variety.
The true "final examination" of any coin is being able to sell it "raw" for strong money to a specialist. If the bulk of offers from experts for a raw PO-01ish coin is $50 and the going slabbed rate is say $300, then it's a $50 coin. If the coin later ends up getting slabbed PO-01 on the 3rd try doesn't make the coin worth $300 imo....though I'm sure in someone's eyes who lives and dies by the price guide, it will be worth that. It was well said above that PCGS has probably seen so few of these coins in any short period of time that it's very hard to stick to a standard. Most probably trade back and forth among the experts who put them into their raw albums as they build their sets. Why do they need a TPG justification (and a submission fee) to know what they already know, especially if they know more about these coins than the TPG's? It would be like sending the coins of an EAC or Colonial expert to the TPG's to tell these guys what they owned (think John Ford for example). Most serious collectors of off-the-beaten-track stuff don't need "expert" opinions. They are the experts.
If you don't have time to carry AG-03's in your pockets or in a leather pouch then go with the low end FR-02's. Toss in a little grease, gunk and oil to maintain that patina. I can see from a number of these PO-01's that they were rescued from desk drawers or a container with loose coins. They have the tell-tale signs of shiny scuffs and hairlines from fairly recent coin to coin contact.
We're never the "lone owner" of our coins unless we got them straight from the US mint like John Clapp and others like him. Any true PO-01 silver dollar was "owned" by thousands of people before us. They all played a part. From a 2014 "newp" to PCGS isn't exactly my idea of the "lone owner" or a "discovery." We're just one of thousands.
I have often considered approaching PCGS to display my lowball set......the 1792-1964 Complete type set including Gold. True, its not complete (86%) which is a major detractor andthe avergae grade is 2.00 (Fair-2) but considering the coins included, still pretty amazing.
Or, if one just chose the same set w/o the Gold, the set is 98% complete (missing 1792 half disme and restrike $1) and grading 1.6 average.
However, to get this set into the same (numerical) position as the morgam set (1.1-1.2) would likely take 20+ years more! To that , I raise a toast to this set as the "lowness" of the set is pretty amazing!
edited to add......I once owned the OGH 1886 $1 (as mentioned in a prior post) - purchased from Pat Braddick probably 10+ years ago. I started making Morgan PO01's about that same time and sold them for $100 ea., little did I know then what I had started........also had an almost complete set of low grade PCGS slabbed Peace dollars ta that point too...
Craig If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Get a PO1 Morgan out of the melt bucket for around 25 bucks. Send it in economy to PCGS (around 30 bucks). Total cost to you around 55 bucks. All the ones that grade problem free PO1, I will pay 110 bucks. You double your money. If it grades FR2 or higher or problem coin it's yours. I don't want it.
@roadrunner said:
The PO-1 pops across the various type coins is rather interesting.
The Morgans lead the pack by far at 290. I didn't look at every type. But the type coins in slug grade are surely a lot scarcer than the Morgans. Morgans apparently have a good makeup (as do the early halves) to
maintain a date while they are being worn down to a nub.
83 seated halves.
45 Lib nickels.
25 type 1 SLQ's (identifibable w/o dates?)
21 seated dimes.
15 seated quarters.
12 barber quarters.
10 Indian cents.
9 Merc dimes.
8 capped bust halves.
7 capped bust quarters.
5 barber halves.
4 shield nickels.
2 two cent pieces.
2 Buff nickels (variety 2's from 1913-1938).
2 Lincolns with wheat back reverse
1 barber dime.
0 Type 2 SLQ's.
Some of these are too low to really explain imo other than there's not a lot of interest yet. Really, there's only 1 problem-free slug Barber dime in the world? Those coins circulated for up to 70 years. I was still finding them in my change in the early 1960's. With the protected dates on the type 2 SLQ's I'm surprised none of them were worn down enough to qualify.
The Morgan dates don't seem to have much logic to low or higher numbers. Why are the commoner dates like 79-0, 80, 81, 82-s, 86 only have 1 specimen? The 79-cc has 4. Wouldn't have expected that. 80-s and 81-s have 2 each. The 1921 Philly with 20, that I would have expected. The 1893-s has 0 in PO-1. But, there are 24 FR-02 sitting in back up waiting to take that vaulted step down. Interesting, there are only 3 dates in the entire series with more FR-02's than the 93-s (the 91-0 at 26, the 1921 at 27, and the 78-cc at 47...along with 6 PO-1 78-cc's). I can explain the 93-s but the others, not so much. The numbers suggest to me there could be a lot more coins coming. With 5600 Morgans graded from AG to Good 6, most of these probably weren't targeted for Low Ball sets when they were submitted. God only knows why they went in. A few thousand dumb people over the course of 2.7 MILL Morgans submitted to PCGS (0.2%) could be just th
Compare the number of PO01s now as to 2014 Especially the Morgans
PO01's have value! I have found ten quarter dollars at auction In my price range with grades from VG08 up to AU58. 1897-1939. I may also bid on six 1854-1927 Cleaned/Details labeled dimes and halves. Down from nine because three got higher bids. I wont get in a bidding war for cleaned coins.
PO-01and low grade by just normal wear coins, are not the worst of the worst. The worst of the worst coins are culls. beat up, scratched up, holed, bent, environmental damaged, etc. PO-1 to AG3 coins may be considered culls by some collectors.
So..........if many of these are CAC stickered, doesn't that mean they are actually "under graded" and not as bad as the grade suggests? Hmmmmm........maybe there's a lot worse out there that haven't been graded. LOL
What TPG grade determines a lowball coin? Any grade AU58 down to PO01? @Zoins your Fugio has listed value whereas that 1925-S CA 50C is graded Genuine Fine Details 98 and does not . After researching Genuine/Details coins, Im going to continue to collect coins that have at least a PO01grade. Thanks everyone!
Comments
<< <i>Lack of profit potential? A nice PCGS PO1 Morgan will go for more than a MS65 common date by a good bit. Typically cost less from dealers too.
Lowballs are a legit collecting enterprise, and it is, imho, far more difficult to collect problem free PO1's than it is to collect MS65's or better. >>
Please show us examples.....particularly an 1893-s dollar fetching MS65 money in PO-1.
While we all understand the enterprise is legitimate it doesn't mean MS65's and PO-1's both can't have their place. For all the effort in trying to hunt down a lone PO-1 (to make $100-$150 as you suggest) most dealers and collectors could probably sift through raw MS63's and MS64's and find coins they can send in in large quantities that would make MS65 grades. The latter enterprise has been the most profitable by far as it has been going on for the past 28 years making a lot of money for people who can snag those upgrades. Every coin show has them. Doesn't sound like you'll even find even a single slabbable PCGS PO-1 if you spent time at 10 or even 100 coins shows. This is still a relatively new undertaking too. You're comparing 28 yrs of TPG data to something that is basically brand new. With 290 examples of Morgan dollars in PO-01 I don't consider that to be a small number for something fairly new, especially if most of the demand is going to be coming from type coin collectors. What was that number 5 or 10 years ago? How fast is it growing yoy?
PCGS shows no mercy when body-bagging coins it thinks didn't come by their wear honestly.
<< <i>A buffing wheel? Really?
PCGS shows no mercy when body-bagging coins it thinks didn't come by their wear honestly. >>
Probably right. But it doesn't take "forever" to tone down a coin that was buffed down from say AG to Good to a PO-1. There is a huge potential supply of Fair-02 to Good-4 coins out there. So there's no machine that could be utilized to simulate a person's greasy hand and a coin rubbing in it or inside their pockets? Doesn't seem that hard an engineering issue to me. Though those brains are probably being put to use to make counterfeits or sell problem coins as problem-free at the higher grade levels (VF-unc). If PCGS has made 290 PO-1's. And say they resulted in profits of $150 each, that's a speciality market of $43,500. It would be hard to find a smaller market of coins inside the broader US markets. Even nic-a-dated buffalo nickels are probably a > $100K/yr market. Cull type coins? That's probably in the $Tens of MILL. Seems like a lot of effort by a lot of people to make $43,000. I understand the collecting enterprise part of it....just not the financial. Fine if you run across one by pure chance you buy it for $20-$30. There's little downside. I bought an 1838 RE half a few years back in perfect FR-02 for $20. How could you lose? I just happened to run across it while looking at a box of raw busties. I bought some XF/AU coins too. But I'm not going to spend my time looking through bags of circ Morgans to find that single PO-1. The odds are probably better of looking through bags of old mercs and finding an overdate.
There are also 970 Fair-02's sitting right behind the 290 PO-1's ready to go into someone's pant's pocket when the time is right....assuming they aren't already there. Not many Morgans are making it to the smelter these days at $21/oz silver. But should we see the $30-$50/oz and higher levels down the road, you can bet a pile of junker Morgans will start showing up again in bags to be melted. A lot of fresh PO-01 and FR-02 coins will show up....unlike the past few years. If coin doctors can simulate dishonest toning without too much effort, why should dishonest wear be any harder? Wear the coin down "unnaturally" to the AG/FR level or so then apply more natural wear to take down the last little bit. Even if you don't make a coin that is passable to the TPG, you can probably still sell these at shows at "all natural po-boyz" and make some decent money. Just don't keep showing up with a fresh dozen of these at every coin show you do...lol.
If not, then please consider that you are expressing opinions about a subject you don't actually know about.
As for examples of Poor-01s selling for MS65 money, please look at these Heritage Auction results:
(more than 66 money)
(more than 65 money)
(roughly triple AU price)
(same date and also roughly triple AU money)
(double 64 money)
wheel but I also know I can use that same time at most coins shows and do better just buying coins I already know.
The last coin (1884) looks a lot nice than the other PO-1's suggesting to me that grade dis-inflation is at work here too. I'd bet that coin if sent back more than once would get a FR-02 grade. High end for the grade is not what
you want here.
OK. So rather than a $43K market this might be as large as $100K-$120K. Is there a difference in that?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
The Morgans lead the pack by far at 290. I didn't look at every type. But the type coins in slug grade are surely a lot scarcer than the Morgans. Morgans apparently have a good makeup (as do the early halves) to
maintain a date while they are being worn down to a nub.
83 seated halves.
45 Lib nickels.
25 type 1 SLQ's (identifibable w/o dates?)
21 seated dimes.
15 seated quarters.
12 barber quarters.
10 Indian cents.
9 Merc dimes.
8 capped bust halves.
7 capped bust quarters.
5 barber halves.
4 shield nickels.
2 two cent pieces.
2 Buff nickels (variety 2's from 1913-1938).
2 Lincolns with wheat back reverse
1 barber dime.
0 Type 2 SLQ's.
Some of these are too low to really explain imo other than there's not a lot of interest yet. Really, there's only 1 problem-free slug Barber dime in the world? Those coins circulated for up to 70 years. I was still finding them in my change in the early 1960's. With the protected dates on the type 2 SLQ's I'm surprised none of them were worn down enough to qualify.
The Morgan dates don't seem to have much logic to low or higher numbers. Why are the commoner dates like 79-0, 80, 81, 82-s, 86 only have 1 specimen? The 79-cc has 4. Wouldn't have expected that. 80-s and 81-s have 2 each. The 1921 Philly with 20, that I would have expected. The 1893-s has 0 in PO-1. But, there are 24 FR-02 sitting in back up waiting to take that vaulted step down. Interesting, there are only 3 dates in the entire series with more FR-02's than the 93-s (the 91-0 at 26, the 1921 at 27, and the 78-cc at 47...along with 6 PO-1 78-cc's). I can explain the 93-s but the others, not so much. The numbers suggest to me there could be a lot more coins coming. With 5600 Morgans graded from AG to Good 6, most of these probably weren't targeted for Low Ball sets when they were submitted. God only knows why they went in. A few thousand dumb people over the course of 2.7 MILL Morgans submitted to PCGS (0.2%) could be just that.
<< <i>Anyone who has searched for and then tried grade "PO-01"s realized there is fine line between an FR02 and a no grade because there is not enough detail to determine the date or mintmark (including if a P that there is no mintmark) ... and then there is the aspect of "A lot can go wrong on the way down"- scratches, rim dings, etc. that lead to a a no grade ... >>
We've had the same argument in reverse on say MS67 Morgans vs. MS68's. That fine difference in a couple of frost breaks or a single bag mark and you're looking at $700 instead of $4,000. It's more than another factor of 7X
price to go from 68 to 69. A FR-02 Morgan is a $15-$20 coin normally. So 7X or more that for the line to PO-01 would be similar to the 67 to 68 "up factor." The word has been out for decades about upgrading nice MS67's to
MS68's. I still don't think the word is out to the general collecting public that PO-01's are worth $200-$500 each based on date. I certainly didn't know that and I'm slightly more informed than a non-collector. I'll have to ask one
of my dealer friends who knows about every angle in the coin market. If he hasn't made one of these things yet, or not even tried, then there's a huge gap here. More info to come later.
<< <i>With 5600 Morgans graded from AG to Good 6, most of these probably weren't targeted for Low Ball sets when they were submitted. God only knows why they went in. A few thousand dumb people over the course of 2.7 MILL Morgans submitted to PCGS (0.2%) could be just that. >>
I submitted two of them, both 1895-S, Good 4 and Good 6. I didn't consider it dumb then and don't now. A large majority of the 5600 AG-G Morgans submitted for grading were premium dates. The 1893-S alone accounted for 861 of them.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
You point to common MS dates that have low Pop on the PO-01 side is because those years and mint had very little circulating. The 85-CC for example has only 1 PO-01 and that coin is worth more than my AU58 CAC 85-CC.
Member, Society of Silver Dollar Collectors.
Looking for PCGS AU58+ 1901-P, 1896-O, & 1894-O
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>So you have never seen a PO01 graded Morgan dollar unless on some auction site or images posted on the registry. Is that a fair statement? My challenge to you is very simple. Find a uncommon date - mint Morgan dollar that PCGS will grade a PO01 and then you'll have something to talk about. The first graded PO01 Morgan dollar was the 1886-P in a OGH dating back to 1992-1993. You have absolutely no concept of the history of some of those coins nor how many grading battles were fought over some of those coins. While you sit back admiring the collection set(s) that you find pleasure in try putting yourself into the other guy's shoes for a years time at getting those coins graded. With all the issues that can disqualify a low ball coin especially for a PO01 it must be pretty frustrating. Several comments on this forum are from collectors whose coins are being displayed in that set. They all knew how difficult the challenge they took was to them to get as far as they did. Until you start a low ball set and actually get serious about not wanting to finish in last and make the set the best you can ease up and take a breath. As I recall 34 coins are one of a kind coins. That fact tells me this collector knows his stuff. Consider the coins in the set and who may have held what coin at what time in history. This is a educational journey and a time capsule of coins destined to be lost forever.
So you're saying that looking at detailed blown up images of a PO-01 is world's apart from seeing a near slug in-hand? I'm not qualified to evaluate the lowest condition Morgan dollars because I've never tried to build a set of them? I have to think that I've held a number of PO-01 coins in my hand from early collecting years in the 1960's to 1970's when I went through thousands of low grade silver coins from the 1890's to 1920's....including Morgans. More than likely I've held a PO-01 Morgan in my hand and never thought anything of it back then....other than it was worth approx 0.65 ounces of silver. I've never held a PCGS MS69 Morgan dollar in hand either. Does that mean if today I ran across a technical MS69 for real (whether raw or undergraded in a 68 slab) that I wouldn't recognize that it was different or "special?" Is grading a PO-01 seated quarter any different from a PO-01 Morgan? I know I've held some PO-01 seated quarters in my hands over the years.
In going through the PCGS pops I made it clear above that the commoner dates pretty much accounted for most of the 290 PO-01 coins. It's a fact. There appears to be no bias towards better dates. The PCGS price guide lists a typical Good 04 Morgan at $29 to $32 for the majority of the dates in the series. Even the ones worth a "hefty" $39 in Good 04 are still common. By definition, in lower circ grades the bulk of the series is basically common. As far as the PCGS price guide, it lists the majority of the dates of these 290 PO-01 coins in the $50-$85 price range. That's odd considering all the links above show coins that went for >$200 each including an 1884 which books for $60. Is the price guide out to lunch or were those bidders? I'm looking at POP and Pricing data and it doesn't correspond to what the specialists are saying above. A single auction result or even a couple don't necessarily set the overall market price. I understand that for CC Morgans that basically didn't circulate, they are difficult to find in very low grades. And the CC mint is a collector favorite....hence the higher prices. I also understand why Morgans that basically all came from bags released in the 1960's would also be very difficult to find in PO-1 (88-s, 93-s, 95-s, 96-0, 03-0, 03-s, 88-0 DDO). Take these 7 dates away plus the CC mints and you're left with the bulk of the Morgan dollar series where the price guide lists a PO-01 at <$100. I didn't write the price guide (or pop reports), just reporting what PCGS published. The Carson City PO-01's are priced about the same as F-VF specimens of those dates. One exception is the 1889-cc which is priced as a Good 6. That's all no surprise. Same general comment for those other 7 dates. They would be priced similarly to F-VF coins. That doesn't look to be a huge stretch in value. I don't see anything here that disagrees with what I suggested in my earlier posts. None of this means that I can't appreciate a set of PO-01 coins and the effort it took to find them.
I think PCGS will be very careful about making the first 1893-s dollar in PO-01. Fwiw a FR02 is priced at $1800 vs. a G-04 at $2250. It remains to be seen if a PO-01 would actually exceed the price of a G-06 (ie similar to the 89-cc pricing). I fully understand the difficulty in completing such a set in PO-01/FR-02. My comments are directed at the current "official" pricing of the series and what the printed data shows. Get the data changed and I'll change my opinion. The next step might be to take a few of these PO-01's, crack them out, and send them back in. How many would get bagged the next time around or make FR-02? I doubt we're going to hear from anyone that tried multiple times on the same coin to holder it as a PO-01. Anyone not in the business of actively making PO-01's could certainly go out and buy a PO-01 to see what it does on the next 2-3 submissions.
I had a random slug seated quarter in the house from one of my last coin shop visits (an 1843-0 lg 0). Curiously, it meets the PO-01 "details" criteria for a number of the PCGS seated and bust photos, but not quite the seated quarter photo. Like the Morgan photo, the seated quarter photo is far more obliterated than say the half dollar. My coin would meet the half dollar standard but not the quarter. This all assumes these photos showing a single discrete grade point represent the entire PO-01 spectrum (they probably don't any more than a single MS67 Morgan photo represents all MS67's). Half of star #8 still remains on my 25c and that could be a sticking point to me. No reverse lettering remains. The wear has worn well into the eagle's outline. Very original and smooth coin too. It must have a had a pretty high rim to allow nearly all the date to remain. I bought the coin because of the date....not the low ball grade. Seems to be every bit a PO-01 coin and I made no special effort to buy it as such. Purely a random occurrence. Now I've recently held a PO-01 coin in my hand and examined it under 10X magnification. In looking at the PO-01 SLQ standard photos they look just like every slug SLQ I handled back in the 1960's and 1970's. All you have to do is to be able to read part of the date. The more I dig into the PO-01 grade the more irregularities I seem to run into. I'd like to see this low ball coin exhibit as well.
PCGS Morgan grading photos
<< <i>The more I dig into the PO-01 grade the more irregularities I run into. >>
Very much so. The usual theory is that PCGS just doesn't see that many lowball coins and have a difficult time being consistent. The serious lowball collectors seem to have more consistent standards themselves. There are lots of head scratchers on both the overgraded and undergraded side.
Unless this has changed in the recent past, I believe there has only been a single Type 2 SLQ graded PO01. The slightest hint of a date usually means it is AG or FR.
Don't.
Get.
It.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
<< <i>What I am asking is have you ever gotten a RAW Morgan dollar graded PO01 from PCGS? That is the final examination grade to all this. Culls and RAW PO01 wanna-bes is here-say and speculation all day long. When the rubber meets the road do you have a graded PO01 Morgan coin you can call your own that from its discovery through its final grade you were the lone owner?
I haven't made a cradle to slab PO-01 Morgan. And why should it be limited to a Morgan since any other other regular US series is much rarer than the Morgan? Considering that at most 1 out of 5 Morgans linked above fully meets the published PCGS photo standards, why bother? I'm not going to feel like I did anything if a legit FR-02 gets into a PO-01 holder like those others. Sorry, I would never use a TPG submission as "proof" of a grade. I've been on both ends of that game. Some coins took 3-6 submissions to make the higher grade. You don't think that same thing will be going on with the PO-01's due to the heavy pressure to get that first or second coin of a particular date to advance one's set? In reviewing the descriptions of the some of the Low Ball Morgan registry sets I did see in one instance where one coin was tried multiple times: A Morgan dollar that always had the look of a PO01 but was properly graded on this last trip. . This game should apply to anyone as it's the unknown supply of coins out there that is the real issue, not who is making the coin. I'll make an effort to sift through what coins are local to me to see what I can come up with. Might be fun to make a PO-01 Morgan. This 1843 "slug-O" quarter will make a visit as well since the coin is probably worth the price of submission just as a scarce variety.
The true "final examination" of any coin is being able to sell it "raw" for strong money to a specialist. If the bulk of offers from experts for a raw PO-01ish coin is $50 and the going slabbed rate is say $300, then it's a $50 coin. If the coin later ends up getting slabbed PO-01 on the 3rd try doesn't make the coin worth $300 imo....though I'm sure in someone's eyes who lives and dies by the price guide, it will be worth that. It was well said above that PCGS has probably seen so few of these coins in any short period of time that it's very hard to stick to a standard. Most probably trade back and forth among the experts who put them into their raw albums as they build their sets. Why do they need a TPG justification (and a submission fee) to know what they already know, especially if they know more about these coins than the TPG's? It would be like sending the coins of an EAC or Colonial expert to the TPG's to tell these guys what they owned (think John Ford for example). Most serious collectors of off-the-beaten-track stuff don't need "expert" opinions. They are the experts.
If you don't have time to carry AG-03's in your pockets or in a leather pouch then go with the low end FR-02's. Toss in a little grease, gunk and oil to maintain that patina. I can see from a number of these PO-01's that they were rescued from desk drawers or a container with loose coins. They have the tell-tale signs of shiny scuffs and hairlines from fairly recent coin to coin contact.
We're never the "lone owner" of our coins unless we got them straight from the US mint like John Clapp and others like him. Any true PO-01 silver dollar was "owned" by thousands of people before us. They all played a part. From a 2014 "newp" to PCGS isn't exactly my idea of the "lone owner" or a "discovery." We're just one of thousands.
Or, if one just chose the same set w/o the Gold, the set is 98% complete (missing 1792 half disme and restrike $1) and grading 1.6 average.
However, to get this set into the same (numerical) position as the morgam set (1.1-1.2) would likely take 20+ years more! To that , I raise a toast to this set as the "lowness" of the set is pretty amazing!
edited to add......I once owned the OGH 1886 $1 (as mentioned in a prior post) - purchased from Pat Braddick probably 10+ years ago. I started making Morgan PO01's about that same time and sold them for $100 ea., little did I know then what I had started........also had an almost complete set of low grade PCGS slabbed Peace dollars ta that point too...
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Just think that PG01 coin is a real tough pop to find.
Compare the number of PO01s now as to 2014 Especially the Morgans
Lafayette Grading Set
Thanks Ricko for letting us know what you are not interested in.
@jerseycat101 .... That comment was seven years ago.... You really got a lot out of this thread didn't you??
Cheers, RickO
Sorry, sometimes it takes a while for me to formulate the right response.
PO01's have value! I have found ten quarter dollars at auction In my price range with grades from VG08 up to AU58. 1897-1939. I may also bid on six 1854-1927 Cleaned/Details labeled dimes and halves. Down from nine because three got higher bids. I wont get in a bidding war for cleaned coins.
Negative interest here. If people want to overspend for these pieces, it is their money to waste. SMH
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
PO-01and low grade by just normal wear coins, are not the worst of the worst. The worst of the worst coins are culls. beat up, scratched up, holed, bent, environmental damaged, etc. PO-1 to AG3 coins may be considered culls by some collectors.
Lot of thread necromancy going on here lately - this doesn't quite compare to the "cleaned coin" thread from 2004 however.
Sounds like a pretty slick collection.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I have revived a few threads here because they have popped up while researching slabbed cleaned and low grade coins to add to my collection.
Boring then boring now.
So..........if many of these are CAC stickered, doesn't that mean they are actually "under graded" and not as bad as the grade suggests? Hmmmmm........maybe there's a lot worse out there that haven't been graded. LOL
While I collect PCGS PO-01s, I don't consider them to be the “Worst of the Worst” or “None Worst”.
Here's an HK-131 So-Called Dollar I have that I want PCGS to encapsulate and TrueView. It has a nice brockage error.
Here's a half dollar PCGS has already encapsulated. Someone liked it enough to pay for a TrueView!
Compare to my Brent Pogue PCGS PO-01 Fugio Cent:
What TPG grade determines a lowball coin? Any grade AU58 down to PO01? @Zoins your Fugio has listed value whereas that 1925-S CA 50C is graded Genuine Fine Details 98 and does not . After researching Genuine/Details coins, Im going to continue to collect coins that have at least a PO01grade. Thanks everyone!