Surprising MS67

Alltheabove76 · June 29, 2015 10:57PM

With those marks in the obv field I would have never expected this to be a 67

Link

BryceM · June 29, 2015 11:04PM

Perfect cheek. Booming luster. Excellent strike.

Without those marks it's a 68.

rkfish · June 29, 2015 11:26PM

Perfect cheek. Booming luster. Excellent strike.

Agree...

machoponcho · June 29, 2015 11:47PM

It's a 67C to me.

jerseycat101 · June 29, 2015 11:49PM

Personally, the marks are too much for a 67, regardless of the luster. Nice strike though.

astrorat · June 29, 2015 11:54PM

<< It's a 67C to me. >>

I agree that it's a "low-end" 67, especially considering the date and mintmark. Yeah, I know, the date and mm should not matter, but it really does with market grading. I don't think this one would "sticker" if submitted. Nonetheless ... it's a really nice coin with a wonderfully clean cheek.

Kove · June 30, 2015 12:13AM

Beautiful cheek. But that coin will probably never leave that plastic.

stealer · June 30, 2015 12:22AM

Definitely surprising. It's at MOST a 66.888998989898988989888888888888888888 for all thosE MARKS.

ANYONE EVER MENTION MARKS? Blind people are grading coins the feelers must've missed the MARKS!!!!!!!

rhedden · June 30, 2015 12:29AM

It's not a 67 by 1980s or 1990s standards, I think. Coins like this one graded MS65 back when I learned how to grade because any significant mark was cause to go to MS65 or lower, regardless of eye appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found this same exact coin in the Heritage archives in an MS65 holder, sold for $150. But you won't, because it's an 1880-S and there are probably 25,000 of them in the archives.

I have an 1880-S in a PCGS MS64 OGH that is nearly identical to this one, with a similar mark in a similar place, except for a swath of pretty color across the obverse. Very clean cheek. Paid $31 for it in 1996, FWIW.

valente151 · June 30, 2015 12:44AM

I'd be amazed to see what several people require for a 68, or dare I say a 68+.

Remember, theres still 3 points of separation between a 67 and perfect 70...

Wabbit2313 · June 30, 2015 1:10AM

<< It's not a 67 by 1980s or 1990s standards. >>

I disagree with this. Standards are tougher than ever. If you crack just about any OGH slab and send them in raw today, many go down. Rattlers are better, but not all of them.

This coin appears to have been graded in early summer or 2012. Crack it out now and send it in, no way she gets a 67.

roadrunner · June 30, 2015 1:16AM

duplicate post

Unknown · June 30, 2015 1:17AM

This content has been removed.

roadrunner · June 30, 2015 1:18AM

Review Legend's Coronet 1 silver dollar auction from last week. There are plenty of examples of killer 66, 67 and even 68 specimens to suggest what is required for those grades. Check out the CC dollars as those are the easiest to see marks on and many of those are 67's and 68's. I would agree that this one looks to be a lower end 67 because of the obverse field chatter.

Coronet 1 sale

MsMorrisine · June 30, 2015 2:14AM

has a hit hidden in the hair above the ear

SeattleSlammer · June 30, 2015 4:32AM

That's a solid 67...at least a "B" version IMO. Those field grazes look quite light. Large pics make everything look worse. Pretty decent price too if you want one....though the $700 sticker on the back would be even better.

CoinJunkie · June 30, 2015 4:37AM

That coin just barely makes 67, IMHO, and then only by today's relaxed standards, as rhedden pointed out.

DRUNNER · June 30, 2015 4:53AM

I also love the cheek and strike. The challenge (no, not absolute kill-shot on a 67 -- but a 'challenge') would be the location of the marks. The cheek is the prime focal area on Morgan grading, but the field out in front of the nose is another . . . . . and this field has enough marks that would make me very delighted if I submitted and it came back a 67.

Not that it can't be a 67 . . . . .just that I would be very happy if I sent it in.

Drunner

johnny9434 · June 30, 2015 5:34AM

who knows, it might have made ,ms 68 with out them field marks. just saying.

DennisH · June 30, 2015 5:38AM

<< Perfect cheek. Booming luster. Excellent strike.

Without those marks it's a 68. >>

Yep.

DoubleEagle59 · June 30, 2015 5:40AM

I agree with the OP.

Those field marks hit me right away.

jesbroken · June 30, 2015 5:55AM

roadrunner,
In comparison to some of the Coronet1 coins, here is one that is an MS67 CAC that I feel has
as much chatter or even more than this coin. Just my opinion.
Jim

19Lyds · June 30, 2015 6:13AM

<< With those marks in the obv field I would have never expected this to be a 67

Link >>

It must have "knock you on your ass" luster!

georgiacop50 · June 30, 2015 6:52AM

My 2 thoughts:

1) Luster is THE most important aspect of grading. We all tend to place too much emphasis on contact marks vs luster.
2) Gradeflation is absofrickinlutely rampant these days.

Wabbit2313 · June 30, 2015 7:00AM

<< Without those marks it's a 68. >>

Without a cleaning coins are not cleaned either! Those marks are there.

BryceM · June 30, 2015 8:08AM

Yes, but contact marks aside, very few coins have the potential to be MS68 material. Eye appeal, strike, and most of all luster have to be all there.

This one has a lot going for it. Dull coins without ANY visible hits are sometimes grades as low as MS62.

The reason hits are over-emphasized on Internet grading is that luster and hairlines are difficult to evaluate from photographs, even good ones.

david3142 · June 30, 2015 9:31AM

The marks look much less severe in the picture of the slab. I would grade this coin 66+, and I could see a 67 if the marks resemble the second set of pictures more than the first. The rest of it is nearly perfect. I don't know how many commenters on this thread are Morgan collectors but I would imagine most of the ones that aren't would be surprised at the number of contact marks on many 67 and even some 68 coins.

golden · June 30, 2015 10:53AM

I am on the fence on this one.

CaptHenway · June 30, 2015 11:01AM

<< With those marks in the obv field I would have never expected this to be a 67

Link >>

CaptHenway · June 30, 2015 11:02AM

<< It's not a 67 by 1980s or 1990s standards, I think. Coins like this one graded MS65 back when I learned how to grade because any significant mark was cause to go to MS65 or lower, regardless of eye appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found this same exact coin in the Heritage archives in an MS65 holder, sold for $150. But you won't, because it's an 1880-S and there are probably 25,000 of them in the archives.

I have an 1880-S in a PCGS MS64 OGH that is nearly identical to this one, with a similar mark in a similar place, except for a swath of pretty color across the obverse. Very clean cheek. Paid $31 for it in 1996, FWIW. >>

By ANACS standards 1979-Summer of 1984 when I was there it would probably have graded MS-64/65. We grasded the whole of each side, not just one aspect like the cheek.

REALGATOR · June 30, 2015 11:06AM

Without that mark to the left of the nose, its a 68. But if it was in a 66 or 66+ holder, I don't think I would try for an upgrade. Close call here.

Tookybandit · June 30, 2015 11:10AM

<< Perfect cheek. Booming luster. Excellent strike.

Without those marks it's a 68. >>

Wabbit2313 · June 30, 2015 11:38AM

<< By ANACS standards 1979-Summer of 1984 when I was there it would probably have graded MS-64/65. We grasded the whole of each side, not just one aspect like the cheek. >>

I own about one hundred of Anacs old photo certificates and coins. While I have crossed some at grade and some up one grade, an equal amount have gone down. To say they are 2 or 3 grades better..........no way. Of course that is 30-35 years ago and memory changes as much as grading I think.

GoldCoin98 · June 30, 2015 2:28PM

<< 

<< Perfect cheek. Booming luster. Excellent strike.

Without those marks it's a 68. >>

Yep. >>

I agree, not a low end 67

segoja · June 30, 2015 3:09PM

Eye Appeal is the biggest factor in grading today. Luster is the major driver of eye appeal for most coins.

This coin has that. Yep a few hits, but it is a 67, not a 69.

JamesM · July 1, 2015 12:58AM

Hello everyone,

I am the owner of Mayer Numismatics and this coin.

I wanted to pop in and say that it is great to see all this feedback on one of my items and the photography I have put a lot of time into getting it to this point.

Overall, the discussion tells me that the photographs are doing the job intended, they are by no means glamour shots and accurately convey the luster and marks the coin has in hand.

Although my point of view is heavily biased due to my ownership, I feel this coin has both, above average check and luster with some marks in the obv field that limit the grade to 67. Without them, it's a plus or better as many of you pointed out. That said, it was priced with those factors in mind at $700 on our webpage (eBay is more due to the fees of selling on the site).

As a side note, this item now has the most page views out of any of my other coins that we listed at the same time, clearly the forum is alive and well.

MsMorrisine · July 1, 2015 1:13AM

<< Hello everyone,

I am the owner of Mayer Numismatics and this coin.

I wanted to pop in and say that it is great to see all this feedback on one of my items and the photography I have put a lot of time into getting it to this point.

Overall, the discussion tells me that the photographs are doing the job intended, they are by no means glamour shots and accurately convey the luster and marks the coin has in hand.

Although my point of view is heavily biased due to my ownership, I feel this coin has both, above average check and luster with some marks in the obv field that limit the grade to 67. Without them, it's a plus or better as many of you pointed out. That said, it was priced with those factors in mind at $700 on our webpage (eBay is more due to the fees of selling on the site).

As a side note, this item now has the most page views out of any of my other coins that we listed at the same time, clearly the forum is alive and well. >>

do you have a true view of this coin?

AHFreak · July 1, 2015 4:35AM

Its amazing how many of you guys here can look at a picture of a coin and start making some of the declarations that have been made in this thread.

The last time I saw a MS67 without any contact marks was..... NEVER.

CaptHenway · July 1, 2015 4:41AM

<< 

<< By ANACS standards 1979-Summer of 1984 when I was there it would probably have graded MS-64/65. We grasded the whole of each side, not just one aspect like the cheek. >>

I own about one hundred of Anacs old photo certificates and coins. While I have crossed some at grade and some up one grade, an equal amount have gone down. To say they are 2 or 3 grades better..........no way. Of course that is 30-35 years ago and memory changes as much as grading I think. >>

Gradeflation is a terrible thing. We once graded the Garrett 1804 dollar, which Bowers had catalogued as an EF-40, as an EF-40. It is now in a Proof-58 holder.

Back then we took one single large contact mark, as this coin has, more seriously than the same amount of damage scattered around in several small marks. I did say "probably" as there is a slight chance that it might have graded MS-65/65 based on overall appearance, but no higher.

TD

CoinJunkie · July 1, 2015 5:18AM

<< Its amazing how many of you guys here can look at a picture of a coin and start making some of the declarations that have been made in this thread.

The last time I saw a MS67 without any contact marks was..... NEVER. >>

Granted, but the nature and location of the marks is very important. In this case, they are
concentrated in a prime focal area and are quite distracting. The seller admits that the coin is
priced as a low end 67 (and as far as I can tell, it's still for sale). That should tell you something
about its rank within the grade tier.

DollarAfterDollar · July 1, 2015 5:36AM

I have a dull looking 1891 Morgan that was graded MS 61. It has even less chatter that this one.

It's all about the luster.

Having a Beverly Hills address might help a bit too.

AHFreak · July 1, 2015 5:41AM

REGARDLESS OF THE RANK IN THE GRADING TIER, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT DESERVED A 67.. AND ALL I WAS SAYING WAS THAT IF YOU FIND A COIN THAT HAS WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A 67 WITHOUT ANY HITS/MARKS/ETC.... YOU JUST FOUND A 68 OR A 69....

Also, the area where these hits are is not considered a prime focal area for Morgan dollars regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agrees with it.

AHFreak · July 1, 2015 5:43AM

this conversation was about whether it was an actual 67 or not, and not what tier in the grade of 67 it belongs..

Also, the area where these hits/marks/chatter are, is not a prime focal area of the Morgan dollar.... whether you agree with that or not, that is how it is.

OOPS... DIDNT MEAN TO POST IT TWICE, HAD A MINOR GLITCH AND DIDNT THINK THE FIRST ONE WENT THROUGH. SORRY BOUT THAT.

SeattleSlammer · July 1, 2015 7:18AM

<< I have a dull looking 1891 Morgan that was graded MS 61. It has even less chatter that this one. >>

Balderdash!

roadrunner · July 1, 2015 8:08AM

<< roadrunner,
In comparison to some of the Coronet1 coins, here is one that is an MS67 CAC that I feel has
as much chatter or even more than this coin. Just my opinion.
Jim

>>

Sort of an apples to oranges comparison. The 1878 8 TF has some pretty toning on both sides which makes it difficult to see any marks. The fields look quite clean. It probably makes a difference that this coin is a POP 2 at PCGS (none at NGC). I would expect the grading services to give zero leeway in grading such a scarce coin. The 1880-s doesn't have to worry about that. The 1888 in this set was one of the few MS67's that seemed lesser than the others....though still stickered. I'm ok with the 1878 being solid for the grade.

1888

The 1880-s has a solid 67 reverse, a 67+ puffy white cheek, and a perfect right obv field. I think with all that you an allow that upper left obv field to skate by at MS66. That's only 10% of the entire coin. I can netting the coin to a MS67B or MS67C coin. Liberty's cheek and overall luster is the primary driver. Without that upper left obv field the coin could be a 67+ or better.

Surprising MS67

Comments

Leave a Comment