Why does PCGS GD4 Morgans have a ton more detail than a GD4 early copper cent?

braddick · August 8, 2013 12:23PM

I'll see worn copper- say a 1794 large cent with super worn rims, a lot of lettering missing and generally just ultra overall worn appearance yet if the same level of detail was on a Morgan it would be FA2 at best.
Conversely, I'll see a GD4 Morgan dollar with detail that translates to a VG or better if it appeared on that early copper.

Are there levels of tolerance not just between the grades, as we've always known, but also between the various series?

Is silver treated different than copper, treated different than nickel, treated different than gold?

I'd love to get your take and insight on this phenomenon.

Unknown · August 8, 2013 12:24PM

This content has been removed.

BryceM · August 8, 2013 12:53PM

I would suggest that every series is graded by its own unique standards. That's why you'll often see people decline to guess grades on coins outside their area of expertise.

MidLifeCrisis · August 8, 2013 12:57PM

My guess is a coin is graded in relation to the other coins of the same series.

Also, amount of actual use in commerce of a given coin type may be a factor.

braddick · August 8, 2013 1:17PM

I remember growing up (in the sixties/seventies) and reading how the different grades were determined. Something like, "2/3's rim = AG/G Full rim, Good, and so forth.

Now that we're adults, grading is a bit more sophisticated.

19Lyds · August 8, 2013 3:24PM

Because the are bigger AND harder coins.

LochNESS · August 8, 2013 3:40PM

Bigger is a part of it, for sure.

But IMO the system should be run the exact opposite of how it's done today. Each grade level should be consistent across all Types.

We don't need AG or G silver dollars just because the grade level exists. Rather than forcing the entire grade spectrum onto every type, is it not better to be consistent?

"Good" wear should look the same on all Types. "XF" should look the same on all Types.

Obviously each obv/rev design will have its own grading points, that doesn't change. It's the exceptions that bug me. Like "oh, this particular hoard of Morgans was handled particularly poorly at the mint, so they are given a handicap upon grading, which typically bumps them up 1-2 points" ... complete BS ...

braddick · August 8, 2013 9:48PM

<< <i>Because the are bigger AND harder coins. >>

Understood, but gold is softer than copper yet the wear tolerated for copper is more lenient than it is for gold.

Here's kind of what I'm thinking...

Look at this PCGS Fugio Copper and then click the link for the Morgan:

If the Morgan looked like the Fugio in regards to wear it would be a FA2.

Fugio Copper LINK

PCGS GD6 Morgan LINK

Reason for Edit:
Fix the links.

roadrunner · August 8, 2013 10:24PM

When I started collecting seriously in the late 1960's and early 1970's it did seem that the standards across all the series were a lot more uniform than they are today. Even the early Brown and Dunn grading guides called for full rims on those early 19th century and late 18th century coinage. I would think the shift towards different standards was predicated on having enough supply. There is no shortage of full rimmed Good and VG Morgans out there with considerable inner detail. Hence, a much tighter standard. However, there is a shortage of problem free-full rim early coppers and silver coinage in general. And wouldn't we all feel a lot better if our coin was called a Good rather than AG or Fair? The same concept has been applied to MS61-MS63 18th and 19th century coinage where in many cases those coins are not much, if any different from an AU58. Higher end type collectors "feel better" knowing they own a MS63 rather than an AU58 capped bust half. How would they feel if their coin was called AU58 and cost 3X the price of the other guy's AU55 or AU53? Of course, the recent everyman registry sets have tossed a wrench into the works where now a choice AU58 in some series brings more money than MS61-63 coins. It all comes down to having enough "acceptable" coins to make a market and make everyone feel good about their coins. The vast majority of draped bust coinage graded as unc today are the AU's from the 1970's. But we feel better knowing we can strive to own a MS63 coin. The other alternative would have been having AU grades of 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 to sort out all the abundant differences in technically AU (worn) coinage especially for pre-1837 bust coinage were most coins under MS64 are technically AU's (ie why do a MS62 or AU58 Morgan have a ton more luster than similarly graded flowing hair dollars and halves). It's not just detail that changes from series to series, it's luster as well. MS gold coins are allowed more hits than the other metals apparently because they are softer. Otherwise, there would be a lot less technically gem gold coins available for those strictly looking for gem gold.

BillJones · August 8, 2013 11:21PM

This is a complicated issue because you are looking at two coins made during different eras when the technologies were totally different.

The 1794 cent was when the U.S. mint was really an amateur operation. U.S. Government officials had been unable to attract professional coin makers from Europe, and the people who were left to do the work were feeling their way along on many cases. Some of them had been involved with making limited numbers of private or state coinage, usually to lower standards. These coinages had not been as large or ambitious as was expected of them with the new Federal coinage.

They had to make their own tools, and sometimes when they were not sure of how to design them. The process of making dies was time consuming and tedious. There were instances when a craftsman could work for many hours on a die only to have crack during the hardening process. We know this from the rare die varieties that only made a few impressions, and there may have been a few dies that were so bad that they were never used.

All of this resulted in imperfect coins. Coins were made in low relief in an effort to prolong the life of the dies. Coins were struck under less pressure for the same reason. All of this resulted in coins that did not wear well in circulation. The lettering, especially on the reverse, was often too delicate to last much beyond five or ten years of hard circulation. Therefore you will find coins that sharper in one area that they are in another. Grading such pieces involves as much art as it does science. Do you grade the coin according to the worst aspects of wear on the coin, or do you look at the strongest aspects or place it somewhere in the middle?

When I was a young collector I found it frustrating to get a decent 1794 large cent that was in my price range. I remember owning on piece that had an obverse that graded Good +, but the reverse was virtually blank. Another piece graded VG on the obverse, but the reverse lettering was incomplete. The coin had no damage, other than honest wear. How do you grade a piece like that?

The Morgan dollar was made at a time when dies were made of better steel on steam driven presses. Properly made coins were the norm, not the exception. Protective rims were upset around to the edge protect the lettering and designs while the piece was in circulation. The expected useful life of the coin in circulation was 20 years. Given these factors it's not surprising that the grading application results in coins that have more detail than those from the earlier era.

You might not agree with that, but the alternative will land you in the same place. Regardless of what the grade might be called the numbers in the catalogs will pretty much fall in the same place for a given coin. The coin will just have a lower grade on it.

Here are the reverses of Mint State two coins, a 1795 cent and an 1878 dollar. Looking at the rims, which one do you think would last longer in circulation?

TwoSides2aCoin · August 8, 2013 11:30PM

It is sophisticated, but should not be complicated.

LochNESS · August 9, 2013 4:47AM

The fact that Fugio cents had such a shorter life expectancy, due to rims etc., should be reflected in their numismatic value and not in their grade.

All of the history BillJones mentioned is most undoubtedly spot-on but I don't see how any of it affects technical grading. Market grade, absolutely. And that holds true for the Registry Set argument of people wanting 63's instead of 58's. Bollocks.

BillJones · August 9, 2013 11:09PM

<< <i>The fact that Fugio cents had such a shorter life expectancy, due to rims etc., should be reflected in their numismatic value and not in their grade.

All of the history BillJones mentioned is most undoubtedly spot-on but I don't see how any of it affects technical grading. Market grade, absolutely. And that holds true for the Registry Set argument of people wanting 63's instead of 58's. Bollocks. >>

Even with the application of EAC grading, which is more conservative than the standards applied by NGC and PCGS, you don't get much from a large cent that is graded Good-4. Copyright laws preclude my using the photo, but I'm looking at a photo in Bill Noyes' book, which has photos of the finest known 1793 and 1794 large cents, of the second finest know 1793 NC-6. The coin is graded Good-4. The bust, "LIBERTY" and the date are visible (The "LIBERTY" and the date are strong), but only about half of the lettering shows on the reverse.

LochNESS · August 9, 2013 11:31PM

I feel like now we are saying the same thing. That is, I'm totally OK with the finest-known (or second-finest?) Fugio being G-4. I don't need an inflated grade just to feel good about the price.

Conversely, there are many collectors who are so concerned about labels, that given the choice, they would rather buy a higher market grade instead of the exact same coin in a lower technical grade.

roadrunner · August 10, 2013 1:07AM

<< <i> Conversely, there are many collectors who are so concerned about labels, that given the choice, they would rather buy a higher market grade instead of the exact same coin in a lower technical grade. >>

I wouldn't think this would apply to any collector who knows how to grade the coin in question. If the higher graded coin of identical quality costs more than the lower graded one, I think
every one of them would buy the lower graded coin. If the assigned label of the lower graded coin is not for that collector, then they can pass on it for that reason. But I don't see any of
them ready to pay up for an identical coin in a holder labeled 1 grade higher. How many hours do people on here spend saying buy the coin, not the holder? One such example might
be an AG 1795 FH half vs. one in Good 4. I would agree that some people don't want to own coins below the grade of Good. Others might not want anything below Fine, or even VF/XF.

braddick · August 10, 2013 3:25AM

The grading game, although not complicated is complex.
Tough to imagine graders agreeing on grades when the difficulty lies in defining the grade level itself.

LochNESS · August 10, 2013 5:27PM

<< <i>I wouldn't think this would apply to any collector who knows how to grade the coin in question. >>

What coin in question? The only question is why copper and silver coins aren't graded on the same scale. Instead we have a sliding scale, adjusted for each Type and in some cases Variety.

If the higher graded coin of identical quality costs more than the lower graded one, I think
every one of them would buy the lower graded coin.
This has been proven false countless times by auction hammers. Even now, there is a TeleTrade thread about the Everyman Registry phenomenon.

I don't see any of them ready to pay up for an identical coin in a holder labeled 1 grade higher.
Again, I point to the Everyman Registry buyers because it's an easy and recent example. But there are many scenarios where this plays out. Sad but true.

Why does PCGS GD4 Morgans have a ton more detail than a GD4 early copper cent?

Comments

Leave a Comment