Weigh in on these 2 morgan dollars

joebb21 · June 9, 2014 8:50AM

I just bought these 2 coins on ebay from a very low feedback seller.

1890 link

1891

When I was bidding on them I was skeptical of the 1891 to begin with and then when I saw the 1890 and the fact it was in a newer prong holder I decided that perhaps at least one was good and worth pursuing.

My feeling in the end is that the slabs were cracked and the coins replaced with inferior coins and fake tags.

My poor pictures to accompany

Unknown · June 9, 2014 8:58AM

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313 · June 9, 2014 9:23AM

The label should be the newer style as far as I remember.

You might be on to something here.

magikbilly · June 9, 2014 9:23AM

No returns. 5 feedback one of which is a neg from Jun-02-14 05:15:

Negative feedback rating "Fast pay, but no coin, no communication; eBay forced refund. Lawless. Beware! Jun-02-14 05:15

What motivated you to spend $2K with this new seller? Did you look at the bid histories?

Eric

LanceNewmanOCC · June 9, 2014 9:38AM

.
i have grave concerns this is an authentic coin but counterfeit holder situation.

ms65, c'mon.

msmorrisine i think it was, posted a link to a site you could buy all the counterfeit 2 piece pcgs slabs till your hearts content.
.

blacksmoke · June 9, 2014 9:40AM

Buyer protection? Did the package come from a physical address?

DennisH · June 9, 2014 9:45AM

Both coins seem to be of significantly lower quality than is stated on the holders.

messydesk · June 9, 2014 9:52AM

As far as I know, you have a 14 day return privilege even if the seller says you don't. Seller's current ID is going to be short-lived.

sparky64 · June 9, 2014 10:31AM

The labels of both look like they've shifted within the slab comparing your pics to the auction pics.

Wabbit2313 · June 9, 2014 10:35AM

The label is not even the right ones with that number, at least on the 1890.

crazyhounddog · June 9, 2014 10:39AM

<< The labels of both look like they've shifted within the slab comparing your pics to the auction pics. >>

I agree 100%

Goldbully · June 9, 2014 10:45AM

On the 1890......this would give me pause.

I did not know that a MS64 Morgan compared to a MS65 could have such a huge price difference.

Anyone else?

Unknown · June 9, 2014 10:48AM

This content has been removed.

MsMorrisine · June 9, 2014 10:53AM

<< The label is not even the right ones with that number, at least on the 1890. >>

Please explain, I'm not sure what you are saying.

lostincoins · June 9, 2014 10:59AM

The cert numbers match what is stated on the look up. Could it be a bad lighting, angle of the coin and an over all bad pic that could be throwing this off?

rkp · June 9, 2014 11:26AM

<< 

<< The label is not even the right ones with that number, at least on the 1890. >>

Please explain, I'm not sure what you are saying. >>

I think what he means is that the relatively low cert number (16533745) would imply an earlier label, not quite a green tag but something with the series display (reference PCGS holder generations thread). Though it's been proven that PCGS does not always go in order when issuing cert numbers. I recall seeing blue holders with much lower serial numbers, one that would ordinarily be associated with a green label.

Connecticoin · June 9, 2014 11:45AM

Those coins are horrible for the grade and may not even be MS. Very likely switched out or fake slabs. Get a refund if you can.

MsMorrisine · June 9, 2014 11:46AM

Interesting the holos are different

metalmeister · June 9, 2014 12:34PM

Doesn't look right for 64 and 65 coins at all. Dipped and switched in holder?
please post better pics upon receipt

magikbilly · June 9, 2014 12:46PM

Still don't understand why these bids were placed...
This all so avoidable.

Eric

keets · June 9, 2014 12:48PM

I think what he means is that the relatively low cert number (16533745) would imply an earlier label, not quite a green tag but something with the series display (reference PCGS holder generations thread).

it is accepted fact and admitted by PCGS that there is no correlation between a cert number and the time graded, they are chosen randomly, and the picture quality isn't really good enough to accurately grade the coins. they may be bogus coin/holder combinations but shouldn't a rush to judgment be avoided till the OP has them in-hand, perhaps this weekend??

Wabbit2313 · June 9, 2014 12:56PM

I am not sure if anyone reads anymore. Those are his pictures.

PCGS certificate numbers have steadily gone up exactly in order over all my orders, which are tons, over the last few years. Bulk may be a different story.

rkp · June 9, 2014 1:14PM

Keets, I agree that the cert numbers are randomly assigned. However, there is certainly a correlation between the cert number and the time it was graded. While we don't know the specific dates any coins were graded, if you were to take a random sample of 1,000 coins and plot the type of label along the X-axis from rattler on the left to the new hologram holders on the right, and the cert numbers increasing on Y-axis, you would indeed find a correlation. Sure there would be outside data points, but in general, you would be able to observe an obvious relationship between the two.

That being said, any one cert number can be from any time period and cannot alone indicate the time it was graded.

keets · June 9, 2014 8:51PM

Wabbit, sometimes clarity isn't a strength when a post is made. I read the OP to mean he had bought the coins and they hadn't arrived yet, that his pictures would "accompany" when he had the coins. if he had said "My poor pictures are below" I would have understood differently. with all that said I guess I must have insulted him because the pictures quality isn't very good.

joebb21 · June 9, 2014 11:15PM

The pictures accompanied are mine that I took once the coins were received. I am no camera expert and still have a point and shoot that is years old.

That said, the 1891 has a very bright and semi polished look to it which makes me very skeptical that it is even in a holder. Doing a cert search for the above and below coins, it looks like this holder number was part of a larger submission as the coin above and below were common 1887 $1 that graded ms64. This is a common tactic to get a coin graded or bumped up in graded. The idea is submit a bunch of similar looking coins that probably should all graded about the same, and hopefully the odd one out (the 1891 in this case) will pass through as just another common coin and be given a comparative grade similar to the others in the submission (in theory as it took place in this case).

the 1890 in pc65 was a "single coin submission.

Interesting to note was that BOTH coin inserts are freely floating around (as can be seen on the 1891) and the coloring of the inserts is almost a full solid blue (instead of the blue meshed with white normally seen.)

As to why I bid on them; is because the photography was even worse than mine

and it could have just been the lighting that came me the warning sign. Anyway, I figured that it was worth a chance.

Having seen many of tens of thousands of morgans and knowing how pcgs and ngc grade them, I was too surprised that both of these pieces made it through. It could have been a coincidence but I am guessing not. The 1890 which is a date I look for a lot in ms64/65 comes nicer and this piece looks very marked up but not in the normal way of a morgan which is making me lean towards possibly a counterfeit. For sure this coin is no ms64- and definitely no 65.

I will of course be filing a claim and returning the coins- it just becomes sad that they will be sold to the next unsuspecting dealer/collector and somebody else will be taking a big loss.

Wabbit2313 · June 10, 2014 12:56AM

<< 

the 1890 in pc65 was a "single coin submission.

>>

Howdy. How do you know it was a single coin submission?

joebb21 · June 10, 2014 1:01AM

<< 

<< 

the 1890 in pc65 was a "single coin submission.

>>

Howdy. How do you know it was a single coin submission? >>

Search the number 25299304 and 25299306

bestday · June 10, 2014 1:05AM

<< The label should be the newer style as far as I remember.

You might be on to something here. >>

nice coins .. new label ?????

Unknown · June 10, 2014 2:19AM

This content has been removed.

Connecticoin · June 10, 2014 2:38AM

<< Still don't understand why these bids were placed...
This all so avoidable.

Eric >>

Agree. Those are REAALLLLY bad!!

bestday · June 10, 2014 5:08AM

<< 

<< Still don't understand why these bids were placed...
This all so avoidable.

Eric >>

Agree. Those are REAALLLLY bad!! >>

does ebay hold the money until feedback is left .. because of low feedback number ?

TwoSides2aCoin · June 10, 2014 5:21AM

Tough to weigh in
When I'm way out

I perceive mine , in hand, to be an MS 65 1892, but PCGS sees it smoothed.
It's going to be misperceived for as long as I live.

Weigh in on these 2 morgan dollars

Comments

Leave a Comment