What will it grade after a QUICK BATH? PL? DMPL? Grade IN...No Bath

ColonelKlinck · May 3, 2013 6:21AM

What say you???

MS62PL ?????

JustNeedCoins · May 3, 2013 6:34AM

63PL

guitarwes · May 3, 2013 6:36AM

<< 63PL >>

Same here.

tlbrown · May 3, 2013 6:36AM

66PL Beautiful Coin

acloco · May 3, 2013 6:42AM

65 or 66 PL.

Kove · May 3, 2013 6:51AM

64, not PL enough.

PonyExpress8 · May 3, 2013 6:53AM

64 no PL

ColonelKlinck · May 3, 2013 6:57AM

Ya'll are harsh!

No one sees the mirrors under the haze??

KeyLargoRareCoins · May 3, 2013 7:00AM

Based off the information provided( not the best image) I am going to say 64 no pl, Cant really see any mirrors from the image let alone any type of a grade so thats honestly just a wild guess

tlbrown · May 3, 2013 7:00AM

<< Ya'll are harsh!

No one sees the mirrors under the haze?? >>

I see the mirrors, that PL all day IMO

DennisH · May 3, 2013 7:02AM

64PL

weresteve · May 3, 2013 7:04AM

64 no PL ... even the slightest bit of toning in the fields will kill the PL designation.

WTCG · May 3, 2013 7:07AM

Based on personal experience with similar coins, when you dip that coin the mirrors will improve but probably not by as much as you imagine. The haze on the fields doesn't look like its concealing that much. I can see a PL as a possibility but anything higher is unlikely.

Furthermore, there appears to be a substance present on the cheek area. If you dip there is a good chance that hidden marks on the cheek will be exposed, which will affect the grade. Before dipping anything it's always a good idea to check if removing toning or concealments will reveal other imperfections.

TomB · May 3, 2013 7:08AM

It looks to have cameo frost on the devices, but I do not think it has mirrors that are PL or DMPL.

nags · May 3, 2013 7:09AM

64 pl was my thought

morgansforever · May 3, 2013 7:21AM

I don't see DMPL, but I do see an attractive Morgan with frosty devices. Appears to be PL, as others have stated, I'll wager 64 PL.
IMO it looks good as is, just sayin.

AUandAG · May 3, 2013 7:21AM

I see a 66 with no mirrors.

Lovely coin for sure.

bob

stealer · May 3, 2013 7:22AM

<< Ya'll are harsh!

No one sees the mirrors under the haze?? >>

That's not haze, that's luster.

BustHalfBrian · May 3, 2013 7:44AM

For a date known for heavy contrast in DMPL, your coin is not as black and white. I could see it making PL, though.

Probably a 64, maybe 64+

relicsncoins · May 3, 2013 7:48AM

<< 64 no PL ... even the slightest bit of toning in the fields will kill the PL designation. >>

Hmmm, I've owned fully toned pieces designated PL by our hosts. Todd currently owns a piece I sent in a few years back.

HighRelief · May 3, 2013 7:48AM

I like the frosty cameo contrast against the semi-prooflike fields and would grade it MS64.

In my opinion the haze in field on both the obverse and reverse would keep this from a PCGS PL designation. I don't think dipping the coin would take the haze away, just maybe soften it a little.

rhedden · May 3, 2013 7:48AM

I see 64 PL in it, possibly 64 DMPL if mirrors are good, but I would not dip it. There are a couple of heavy cheek hits that are toned over. Besides, there are enough blast-white dollars in the world without dipping another. I only dip when the toning is so ugly that a dipped-out, lusterless MS60 would be an improvement.

clevegreg · May 3, 2013 8:36AM

The frost on the coin is very nice, but the Cheek area bothers me. Makes me wonder why it was (probably) broken out of a GSA holder
and placed in its current home. I have seen "thumbed" coins that look very much like this coin..the coloration of the cheek is so
different from the rest of the coin. Old nose grease on a coin looks just like that.

Hope I'm wrong

Greg

edited for spelling

magikbilly · May 3, 2013 8:40AM

Possibly dipped before with that toning, thumbed/greased look on cheek (makes me wary), PL surface at best, frosty looking.

Eric

Wabbit2313 · May 3, 2013 8:51AM

94 Alt. Surfaces.

I cracked an NGC Fatty DMPL recently, sent it in raw, came back a grade higher, no PL or DMPL. Just won't happen these days.

darktone · May 3, 2013 9:23AM

<< Possibly dipped before with that toning, thumbed/greased look on cheek (makes me wary), PL surface at best, frosty looking.

Eric >>

I think it was dipped before too. One more dip might be too much.

CuKevin · May 3, 2013 9:42AM

Looks 64 to me. The neck won't allow it to go 65. I can't tell if it is PL or not from the pics. The surfaces suggest it may go PL.

Stuart · May 3, 2013 9:48AM

I like the coin the way it looks now, and would not recommend dipping it. As a collector who values original unaltered surfaces, and original mint luster bloom, I'd enjoy this 1882-CC in its current attractive condition.

I would only recommend dipping a coin to conserve it, to remove a foreign substance that could eventually damage the coin.

In reply to your question, based on the digital images provided I see an attractive coin with Frosty Devices, and Light Cameo contrast against Semi-Prooflike fields.

ModernDollarNut · May 3, 2013 9:56AM

I have no particular Morgan grading experience to bring to this table, but if I were a PCGS grader, I'd be cautious due to the cheek area and give it a 65 or 64 PL to cover my butt. Rob

LanceNewmanOCC · May 3, 2013 10:13AM

.
for my gtg only from the images provided, 64pl
.

coindeuce · May 3, 2013 12:17PM

Regardless of what the fields may provide in depth, I would not recommend dipping this in E-Z-est or Jewel-Luster. A quick bath in a diluted solution of MS-70 (using distilled water) should be sufficient.

Cougar1978 · May 3, 2013 12:27PM

A 65 but tough to decide on PL without seeing it in 100 watt light in person.

Super nice coin!

ColonelKlinck · June 6, 2013 5:16AM

Didn't see an MS62 coming!

epcjimi1 · June 6, 2013 5:35AM

Holy buckets! No one else in the thread saw it coming, either.

Wolf359 · June 6, 2013 5:37AM

If the grade don't fit, you must re-submit!

ColonelKlinck · June 6, 2013 8:17AM

<< If the grade don't fit, you must re-submit! >>

This time its getting a bath!

stealer · June 6, 2013 8:21AM

<< 

<< If the grade don't fit, you must re-submit! >>

This time its getting a bath! >>

IMO with that cheek, there is no way it's going to get higher than a 63. I think a 62+ is perfect.

rhedden · June 6, 2013 8:37AM

In the OP, I don't recall seeing the second photo. Was it added later? The top photo looks 64PL, and the bottom looks like a completely average MS62 GSA dollar.