Morgan jumps 3 grades

MonsterCoinz · June 23, 2015 2:37AM

So I was just perusing CoinFacts this morning when I found this. What say you? And have you seen a similar jump before?

Sorry for the size - they are CoinFacts images

Before: MS64

After: MS67

ad4400 · June 23, 2015 2:41AM

Earlier this year I got two coins upgraded from 58 to 63. For one of them that meant about a $1K bump in value.

tradedollarnut · June 23, 2015 2:43AM

I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right.

LanceNewmanOCC · June 23, 2015 2:50AM

.
you will find my breakdown of the trueview, secure plus and coinfacts url image sizes text herre. there are several image sizes avail.

- the info is about halfway through the thread.

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/15828811_1372349_large.jpg

roadrunner · June 23, 2015 2:52AM

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

That could be. This is very similar to many NGC 67's of the 2004-2008 period. The coin is so striking that the grade is somewhat secondary whether 66 or 67.

The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period when even the most inconsequential abrasions would preclude a 65 grade. MS64 to 67..... or 65 to 68 is one heckuva a tough upgrade for a Morgan dollar.

Wolf359 · June 23, 2015 2:53AM

I can understand this is a very eye appealing coin, but to me it's MS65/6 quality.

Wolf359 · June 23, 2015 2:55AM

<< 

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

That could be.

The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period when even the most inconsequential abrasions would preclude a 65 grade. MS64 to 67..... or 65 to 68 is one heckuva a tough upgrade for a Morgan dollar. >>

yeah...could have been gassed in the old slab. I'm sorry but I just don't trust toned coins on common dates.

VanHalen · June 23, 2015 2:56AM

That was a sweet 64!

Wabbit2313 · June 23, 2015 3:03AM

I can see 67. What a lovely coin.

brg5658 · June 23, 2015 3:04AM

<< 
@roadrunner: The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period when even the most inconsequential abrasions would preclude a 65 grade. >>

Then how do you explain that the lower graded MS64 cert number (15828811) has a "Secure Image" available. The Secure Images are a recent phenomenon (introduced in 2010 I believe), not one from the 1980s. Think what you'd like, but the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis of this having been graded MS64 in the 1980s.

telephoto1 · June 23, 2015 3:04AM

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

This.
I like the coin...awesome color (even though the first pics look juiced IMO). But even with today's gradeflation 67 on this piece was a definite early Christmas gift.
65 imo, no better given the marks. Price...now that's a different discussion.

keyman64 · June 23, 2015 3:14AM

I could agree with 66 but it doesn't really matter what the grade is since it would sell for more than 67 money as long as it is in a graded holder.

Unknown · June 23, 2015 3:22AM

This content has been removed.

david3142 · June 23, 2015 3:28AM

This coin looks like a 67 all day to me and it will obviously go for way over 67 money so it doesn't really matter that much. Technically it looks no worse than a 66+ so the color easily bumps it to the next grade. I would love to have a shot at it, if anyone knows who owns it!

DennisH · June 23, 2015 3:36AM

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

I agree.

blu62vette · June 23, 2015 3:57AM

<< 

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

I agree. >>

Me too.

dib · June 23, 2015 4:04AM

I had a 62 go to 65, and a 55 go to 62 recently (not morgans). Never seen a 64 become a 67 though... must be a lucky guy whoever owns that morgan.

roadrunner · June 23, 2015 4:17AM

<< 

<< 
@roadrunner: The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period when even the most inconsequential abrasions would preclude a 65 grade. >>

Then how do you explain that the lower graded MS64 cert number (15828811) has a "Secure Image" available. The Secure Images are a recent phenomenon (introduced in 2010 I believe), not one from the 1980s. Think what you'd like, but the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis of this having been graded MS64 in the 1980s. >>

I never said it was graded in the 1980's and then only recently regraded. I can only say that by viewing the photo the coin should meet or exceed MS64 standards from the 1986-1987 period....you know, when standards were insanely strict on Morgan dollars. The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period....which means "accurately" graded for the appropriate era. The fact that is has recent grades of both MS64 and MS67 would suggest that the MS64 was way off the mark on the previous submission (ie not properly graded for the period). If I were the former owner of this coin I'd be livid. Maybe the coin went in with a bunch of Questionable Toners and got sacked into a 64 holder. The "who" of the submission process is sometimes as important as the "what." The fact that the coin went "secure" says they were alright with the toning. Yet, how could you possibly market grade this coin 64 when it is easily solid 64 or better on marks, and has superior luster as well as MS 67/68 eye appeal? The photo is enlarged at least 50X and still doesn't show any marks that would preclude a 65/66 grade imo. I don't see even the strictest of graders on this forum giving this less than a 65+ grade.

telephoto1 · June 23, 2015 4:21AM

Stop being wowed by the toning and look at the bagmarks both sides folks...this is no 7.

roadrunner · June 23, 2015 4:27AM

<< Stop being wowed by the toning and look at the bagmarks both sides folks...this is no 7. >>

It was also no MS64 either. You have to be wowed by the toning as eye appeal often adds up to a point on some coins. That's PCGS's criteria, not mine. If you only grade coins by the marks, you will routinely end up with the incorrect market grade. This coin is in between positive to amazing eye appeal....worth 1/2 to 1 point additional. Eye appeal carries as much weight (or more) than marks alone. In essence, that is saying that a MS66 with superb eye appeal can be graded MS67. We're looking at one.

PCGS eye appeal standards

agentjim007 · June 23, 2015 4:29AM

I hope that means they really don't look at the previous grade.

CoinRaritiesOnline · June 23, 2015 4:34AM

Could have been graded in the 80's as a 64 and then simply reholdered and TrueViewed recently before someone cracked and resubmitted.

MonsterCoinz · June 23, 2015 4:35AM

The fact that this was resubmitted and is not in any registry set leads me to believe this is in a dealer's inventory somewhere.

telephoto1 · June 23, 2015 4:40AM

<< 

<< Stop being wowed by the toning and look at the bagmarks both sides folks...this is no 7. >>

It was also no MS64 either. You have to be wowed by the toning as eye appeal often adds up to a point on some coins. That's PCGS's criteria, not mine. If you only grade coins by the marks, you will routinely end up with the incorrect market grade. >>

I add dollars to the price for sexy color, but not points to the grade...which IMO is as it should be. I call it a nice 65, with toning or sans toning. It may well bring 66 or 67 money, but that doesn't actually make it a 66 or 67.

brg5658 · June 23, 2015 5:05AM

Regardless of when or how it was graded MS64, the more important question is "Has market grading really slipped this much?" to let a former 64 now be in an 67 holder? An inconsistency of 3 whole grade points in the mid-range MS part of the scale is disturbing, regardless of the amount of time between one grade and the other. It's not like a 55 coming back 62 -- as many 55s look as good or better than many 62s.

I know it's been said before, but where people get really buried in coins like this is when they don't realize that the "eye appeal" factor has already been accounted for in the numerical grade bump. So they pay for the "wow" factor twice -- in the numerical grade, and in the color departments.

I still shake my head at the 188X-S generic date Morgan graded MS65 by PCGS that had some "purdy" color and sold for $14K in the February Legend auction. Seriouly, 100 times guide? To each his own I guess...

marmac · June 23, 2015 5:34AM

Interesting history on this one with the two assigned grades. I think from the eye appeal standpoint, this one might fall into "Super Amazing" = +2 points. As someone mentioned, if I was the owner at 64, I'd be a little frustrated about now.

Wabbit2313 · June 23, 2015 5:53AM

To think that eye appeal is not part of the grading process is foolish thinking. Beautiful luster coins versus dull dipped out coins always grade higher, even if the technical grade is the same. Amazing color on any coin certainly is taken into account. And rightly so.

The coin was not a 64 and someone made a mistake back then. I think the coin is great as a 67.

LeeBone · June 23, 2015 6:55AM

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

^^This^^

morgansforever · June 23, 2015 7:07AM

Very appealing and the strike is above average. O mint Morgans are frequently seen as mushy with a rounded breast, not so with this piece.
The reverse looks like that of an early S mint Morgan.

ms70 · June 23, 2015 7:15AM

<< I'll go out on a limb and say neither of those grades is right. >>

I'm on that limb with you. No way is that anywhere near a 67. I'm certainly not an expert and I can tell you that.

MsMorrisine · June 23, 2015 7:23AM

<< 

<< 

<< 
@roadrunner: The only way that coin was ever possibly a PCGS MS64 might have been in the 1986-1987 period when even the most inconsequential abrasions would preclude a 65 grade. >>

Then how do you explain that the lower graded MS64 cert number (15828811) has a "Secure Image" available. The Secure Images are a recent phenomenon (introduced in 2010 I believe), not one from the 1980s. Think what you'd like, but the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis of this having been graded MS64 in the 1980s. >>

Could have been a secure reholder?

Looks like a 6 bumped for color to me. >>

note in the cert lookup page the holder type still says "Standard"

This happened to me on my secure re-holders. They updated the page with the image, but did not change the cert pages to say "holder Secure"

this was a reholder into SP.

there are way too many hits for a 67.

but it has lots of other things going for it.

it looks like it has lots and lots of luster, and I'll take others' words for it that it is a great strike for a 04-O

edit: the software guys could easily make a button in an app to convert the holder type to "secure" in their database. From a database perspective, it is just a single command to execute the change for each cert.

SeattleSlammer · June 23, 2015 7:29AM

<< Stop being wowed by the toning and look at the bagmarks both sides folks...this is no 7. >>

I think you're mistaking some toning spots for bag marks.
I can easily see a 66 here...maybe better.

DoubleEagle59 · June 23, 2015 7:40AM

I think we can say it's closer to a 67 than a 64.

Perhaps we can all agree it's somewhere between a 65+ to a 66+.

Grading that coin a 64 must have been done by a summer student on a 10 day trial or something (my apologies to the grading company for being so critical and brutally honest).

TwoSides2aCoin · June 23, 2015 7:58AM

Easy to see how eye appeal can affect the objective view. The coin probably dazzles at different angles of view. Looks pretty. That is all.

lasvegasteddy · June 23, 2015 8:06AM

and somewhere
the submitter of this coin is still stoked with an ear to ear smile

quite a grade bump there

david3142 · June 23, 2015 8:36AM

The price jump from 66 to 67 is huge ($400 -> $4000) so I assume PCGS is not going to be charitable when handing out the higher grade. So who is the lucky seller?

mercurydimeguy · June 23, 2015 8:44AM

You know, on a keypad the 7 is right underneath the 4, could be a mechanical error.

I had an 1869-S NGC VF30 half eagle I sent in for crossover grading last year, grade posted as an AU53. I said NO WAY, it's not possible.

And it wasn't, the coin was held at PCGS for several days, and then new grade reposted as a VF30. I suppose I'm an idiot but to anyone who would have seen it in an AU53 they wouldn't believe it. Just like I don't belie this Morgan is a 67. PCGS photos are works of art, as you've seen in the 1877 Trade dollar thread, and it's probably no different than this Morgan.

It might be a mechanical error, someone pressed the 7 below the 4 on a keypad by accident, and voila, a 67 Morgan

Just one plausible scenario...

braddick · June 23, 2015 10:11AM

Who is assuming the keypad used to designate coin grades is the standard keypad?

mercurydimeguy · June 23, 2015 10:14AM

<< Who is assuming the keypad used to designate coin grades is the standard keypad? >>

They use MS Windows PCs with standard keyboards...

roadrunner · June 23, 2015 10:23AM

<< The price jump from 66 to 67 is huge ($400 -> $4900) so I assume PCGS is not going to be charitable when handing out the higher grade. So who is the lucky seller?

>>

My guess would be a dealer that we all know. I don't know how high on the color chart this coin goes (A-, A, A+). But it's possible that with the 62X price guide bump from MS64 to MS67 that the MS67 rarity has trumped the color premium. Usually, it's the other way around with most toners, as they usually are the most common dates. This date is 44X better than an 80-s or 81-s in MS67. With at most 43 PCGS MS67's slabbed, it's unlikely there's another toner like this one in this grade.

MonsterCoinz · June 23, 2015 10:40AM

Interesting responses so far. I feel this is a 66 with a full grade bump for color.

This isn't the best job, but I adjusted the color. Still looks 66 to me.

braddick · June 23, 2015 10:50AM

<< 

<< Who is assuming the keypad used to designate coin grades is the standard keypad? >>

They use MS Windows PCs with standard keyboards... >>

Sure, but the numbers are sequential- in a single row- right?

mercurydimeguy · June 23, 2015 10:56AM

<< Sure, but the numbers are sequential- in a single row- right? >>

braddick, below is a standard US MS Windows PC keyboard layout. Note the number pad on the right. That's what people who do data entry use, not the row on top as it takes forever. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a mechanical error but it could be, has happened to me and countless others. One slip of the finger and it's a 7 not a 4. And if copying from handwriting a 4 could also look like a 7 depending on handwriting style. All I'm saying is a 64 vs a 67 is an order of magnitude leap in a coin, nothing like AU58 to MS62 (also 3 grades). It could just be a mechanical error...

Wabbit2313 · June 23, 2015 11:00AM

LOL. Keyboard error, handwritten notes?

Coin finally was graded correctly, at 67.

braddick · June 23, 2015 11:02AM

<< 

<< Sure, but the numbers are sequential- in a single row- right? >>

braddick, below is a standard US MS Windows PC keyboard layout. Note the number pad on the right. That's what people who do data entry use, not the row on top as it takes forever. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a mechanical error but it could be, has happened to me and countless others. One slip of the finger and it's a 7 not a 4. And if copying from handwriting a 4 could also look like a 7 depending on handwriting style. All I'm saying is a 64 vs a 67 is an order of magnitude leap in a coin, nothing like AU58 to MS62 (also 3 grades). It could just be a mechanical error...

>>

Thanks.
Now I see.
(Using a Mac wireless keyboard- I thought the setups were the same across platforms...)

wondercoin · June 23, 2015 11:23AM

And we can't have a 69+ grade because it is too hard to differentiate between a 69 and 70? Pretty funny. Wondercoin.

TopographicOceans · June 23, 2015 11:32AM

They turned down the juicing on the photo and could see it better?

georgiacop50 · June 23, 2015 11:40AM

<< And we can't have a 69+ grade because it is too hard to differentiate between a 69 and 70? >>

Don't you blaspheme!

Rampage · June 23, 2015 11:52AM

I did not read all the responses, but my initial thought is that the coin was under graded at MS64, and over graded at MS67. I like it as a solid MS65, maybe a + on a good day.

MsMorrisine · June 23, 2015 12:28PM

<< 

<< 

<< Sure, but the numbers are sequential- in a single row- right? >>

braddick, below is a standard US MS Windows PC keyboard layout. Note the number pad on the right. That's what people who do data entry use, not the row on top as it takes forever. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a mechanical error but it could be, has happened to me and countless others. One slip of the finger and it's a 7 not a 4. And if copying from handwriting a 4 could also look like a 7 depending on handwriting style. All I'm saying is a 64 vs a 67 is an order of magnitude leap in a coin, nothing like AU58 to MS62 (also 3 grades). It could just be a mechanical error...

>>

Thanks.
Now I see.
(Using a Mac wireless keyboard- I thought the setups were the same across platforms...) >>

old sun microsystems workstations had the numeric pad on the right, but the keys were in telephone format with the 1-2-3 across the top row. it was a pain in the butt working from a pc at home, connected to a sun, then working directly from the sun. I made so many numerical typos swapping between the two.

A mechanical error is possible. I was judging it solely from the reverse since the obverse has so many dark colors.

MsMorrisine · June 23, 2015 12:49PM

<< Interesting responses so far. I feel this is a 66 with a full grade bump for color.

This isn't the best job, but I adjusted the color. Still looks 66 to me.

>>

llook at the reverse using the max size and you'll see what's marks and what's not. once you pass a certain number of hits, a 67 just don't fit.

I love the orange liberty contrasted with the pinks and blues. Then the golds. amazing gold. and the profile is highlighted. you couldn't coin doctor a coin so nice.

Morgan jumps 3 grades

Comments

Leave a Comment