Home U.S. Coin Forum

gtg 92-cc morgan - not mine

KollectorKingKollectorKing Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited October 31, 2017 9:12AM in U.S. Coin Forum


Comments

  • 10000lakes10000lakes Posts: 811 ✭✭✭✭

    I grade it expensive, since I know the pedigree.

  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A toughy...

    The coin appears very "clean" as far as marks....But the toning seems to add some distractions (to me). The high points on the obverse almost make me want to say AU-58....but I don't think that much high point rub could exist with such pristine fields. (All that could be wrong if the toning is hiding something in the fields.)

    To me, it adds up to MS-64. And I stand by that until I'm proven wrong by the actual grade. :smiley:

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • dmwestdmwest Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭

    MS66 - is it PL too under that toning?

    Don't quote me on that.

  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    (After some research....I find it unfortunate that I'm unable to "LOL" my own posting). :)

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • KollectorKingKollectorKing Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dmwest said:
    MS66 - is it PL too under that toning?

    Not pl :(

  • jedmjedm Posts: 2,939 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Super clean... 67?

  • RollermanRollerman Posts: 1,840 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's kind of hard to say, but in the spirit of GTG, I will GUESS MS65.
    Pete

    "Ain't None of Them play like him (Bix Beiderbecke) Yet."
    Louis Armstrong
  • gripgrip Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think I need a new monitor it keeps coming up AT.?

  • KollectorKingKollectorKing Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2017 1:07PM

    @grip said:
    I think I need a new monitor it keeps coming up AT.?

    not at, it received a straight grade given by our host.

  • jtlee321jtlee321 Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since it's a TV, it's going to be very difficult to guess an accurate grade. It looks very clean, but the luster seems a bit muted for a CC Dollar. I would guess overall that it's an MS-65.

  • KollectorKingKollectorKing Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • dmwestdmwest Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭

    killed it. Very nice Morgan!

    Don't quote me on that.

  • dmwestdmwest Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭

    Looking at the PCGS price guide, wasn't this coin a 66+ at one point?

    Dean

    Don't quote me on that.

  • KollectorKingKollectorKing Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dmwest said:

    Looking at the PCGS price guide, wasn't this coin a 66+ at one point?

    Dean

    Maybe @10000lakes knows.

  • dmwestdmwest Posts: 947 ✭✭✭✭

    @KollectorKing said:

    @dmwest said:

    Looking at the PCGS price guide, wasn't this coin a 66+ at one point?

    Dean

    Maybe @10000lakes knows.

    At least it’s one of the examples of 92-CC on the pcgs coin facts.

    Don't quote me on that.

  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dmwest said:

    Looking at the PCGS price guide, wasn't this coin a 66+ at one point?

    Dean

    It's a 66+ now, previously 66.

  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dmwest said:

    @KollectorKing said:

    @dmwest said:

    Looking at the PCGS price guide, wasn't this coin a 66+ at one point?

    Dean

    Maybe @10000lakes knows.

    At least it’s one of the examples of 92-CC on the pcgs coin facts.

    That just means that it's one of the three highest grades of the PCGS # that has a TrueView.

  • 10000lakes10000lakes Posts: 811 ✭✭✭✭

    The coin is currently in a 66+ holder. Sunnywood-Simpson-RSD previously it was PCGS tour / Gregg Bingham NFL Collection as a 66

    https://pcgs.com/cert/%2031671166

  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @afford said:

    @TommyType said:
    A toughy...

    The coin appears very "clean" as far as marks....But the toning seems to add some distractions (to me). The high points on the obverse almost make me want to say AU-58....but I don't think that much high point rub could exist with such pristine fields. (All that could be wrong if the toning is hiding something in the fields.)

    To me, it adds up to MS-64. And I stand by that until I'm proven wrong by the actual grade. :smiley:

    Please explain how the toning is a distraction and and how the high points almost make you want to say au58......this is going to be interesting.

    Well, if I read your message correctly, you're coming in with a chip on your shoulder, and I have nothing to add to what I said. Take it, or leave it.

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2017 12:10AM

    If it were a polite question, I would have answered it, no question. I have nothing to hide or run from. I've been wrong in "guess the grade" threads before, and fully intend to be in the future.

    Now, since my opinion seems to be so important to you, I invite you to go back and read my entire post again. After you read that, look at my follow-up 5 or 10 minutes later, posted after I found the actual coin in CoinFacts. Did you catch the spirit of my "contribution" to this thread? It was intended to be good natured and constructive.

    Now that we have read what I wrote, you'll note that I quite clearly stated that I did not believe it was an AU coin. (I WAS in a good mood when I wrote it, so was much more verbose than is the norm in "guess the grade" threads. Maybe that was my mistake).

    Now to your question: look at the streak of toning from the ear to the front of the crown. This is combined with a flat spot above the ear. Not uncommon, but combined with the high toning, it made me think. I'm sure I don't need to explain that a color difference on the high points is what one should look for on any coin to consider it's uncirculated state. I saw it, considered it, wrote about it, and dismissed it for the reasons stated.

    As for the toning overall....I will be in the minority when I say I don't like it. Besides the high point streak, there is the red highlighting to the portrait on the obverse, and toning breaks and spotting on the reverse. To me, they are all distracting, and detrimental to the coin design, which is what I buy coins for, (generally). I don't pay up for toning, unless it is light and enhancing to the design (all in my opinion, of course). Assuming I had the money, which I certainly don't, I would probably pass on this coin.

    My only mistake, thinking back, was not calling it an MS-65 instead of 64, though I still maintain it's hard to tell what the fields actually look like under the toning. I saw a 65 that I discounted to 64, rather than a 65 that got upgraded to 66(+). (Or, possibly, a 66 that got upgraded to 66±>. I should know that the "distracting toning" is much more of a problem for me than for many/most buyers, and the actual graders.....who may howl at me for calling it distracting.

    Next time you want me to expound on one of my posts, just ask. You can leave out the dismissive, "....this should be interesting".

    (Edited to tone down my attitude).

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • DoubleEagle59DoubleEagle59 Posts: 8,197 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I saw the posted grade but what I was going to say was "gorgeous and definitely better than a 65!"

    "Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)

    "“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)

    "I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The pictures in the OP made it appear that there was rub/wear on the hair and the eagles breast..... I would not have graded it a 66...probably a 64...Cheers, RickO

Leave a Comment

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