Options
1885 CC Morgan-NewP- GTG---- conservation service candidate? (Grades in. Posted pg 3)
nwcoast
Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭✭✭
Been fortunate enough to have been able to make some coin purchases recently. Picked up this Morgan at a local B&M. It's housed in an old PCGS "rattler". The Mirrors are amazing on this coin and I feel like I picked it up at a very fair price. The photos don't do it justice! I picked up some of those Ikea goosneck LED lamps and was playing around with them last night. I think these lights will be excellent for smaller coins but need some diffusion for these bigger coins! The "milk spots" are much more evident in the photos than in hand... They're there though!!! If removed, would these leave something more offensive in their place?
Question is....
Might these be an easy fix with a quick dip or some acetone?
I'm thinking the conservation/reconsideration service might be in order here.... Any thoughts on this from those with more experience?
The coin comes from a very old collection I have first crack at reviewing and picking through.... very lucky and happy at this opportunity
Thank you for your comments and consideration.
Question is....
Might these be an easy fix with a quick dip or some acetone?
I'm thinking the conservation/reconsideration service might be in order here.... Any thoughts on this from those with more experience?
The coin comes from a very old collection I have first crack at reviewing and picking through.... very lucky and happy at this opportunity
Thank you for your comments and consideration.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
0
Comments
5$ bills are WOW with the numbers - wanted:
02121809
04151865
Wanted - Flipper notes with the numbers 6-9 or 0-6-9 ON 1$ 2$ 5$ 10$ 20$
Wanted - 10$ Sereis 2013 - fancy Serial Numbers
A bit on the fence on this one, between MS63PL or MS64PL, so I'll go MS63+PL.
rodorr
bob
I'm jealous that you get first shot at an old collection.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
Hoard the keys.
I don't think those spots are coming off.
Nothing against Restoration Service, but this is not worth paying for in this instance. My guess - you'll end up with 64DMPL, which would be a lovely score.
<< <i>Easily a 4 and looks DMPL.
Anybody calling this a three, please sell me your MS63 raw morgans with cheeks like that, thanks! >>
Yep, you nailed it!
I'm thinking if cleaned up, it should fit into the DMPL category... The cameo and mirrors take it there IMO...
Thanks for your help everyone. I guess it worthwhile to crack it myself and resubmit...
Sorry to those that might be attached to old holders.
This is the first Morgan from the large collection. A complete set of Morgans is on the way along. I've picked up a hanful of coins from other series though it's the Morgans and early stuff I'm really looking forward to. Been through the Buffs and didn't score much.. Most were lower grade than my current set. I was hoping for upgrades. I'll be getting them with the Morgans most likely.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.
Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many.
<< <i>There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.
Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many. >>
In your experience then, I should not crack this coin, clean it up and resubmit it then?
Might I be better off sending it in for their reconsideration/conservation service then?
Thanks for your input.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>There is a zero chance the Rattler PL holder gets DMPL these days. Grading services were far more lenient on DMPL a few years back. I know from at least 100 DMPL type coins sent in, every way, shape, form, and holder imaginable the last 2 years.
Also, Rattler and OGH slabs are overgraded, in my opinion, compared to Secure Plus coins of the last year. Sure there are exceptions, but not many. >>
Bearing in mind that all generalizations are bad, have you any thoughts on this specific coin. Do you consider it a possible exception to your "rule"?
If it was one of those 80-CC's with super cameo contrast and highly striated fields I might agree with your "analysis". 85-CC's sometimes come monster DMPL
In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.
Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.
What's done is done.....
We'll see what comes of it. No turning back now!
The cartwheel visualized on my photos is as much a product of the lighting as anything else. I was using some very hard little Ikea lamps.
I could easily diffuse the lights and you wouldn't see any cartwheel. Just white or black depending on the positioning.
The milk spots cleaned up nicely though.
Thanks for all the input.
I'll keep you posted as to the outcome.... I sure hope it doesn't come back a 63!
What's life without a little risk?
Edited to add....
THAT sure looks a LOT nicer than a 63!!!! You might want to crack that sucker out and resubmit it! Those cheeks are clean!!!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Put up some new pics! I would love to see it now.
Also, tell me about it on the 63! Typical tough date syndrome.
Cheers!
<< <i>Put up some new pics! I would love to see it now.
Also, tell me about it on the 63! Typical tough date syndrome
Cheers! >>
This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.
I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.
As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference.
Edited to add: I have been appropriately chastised for the ignorance displayed in the last assertion.
<< <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.
Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.
>>
Looks like it needs a dip:
You could sell it to me at CDN 63DMPL Ask. But it would just be another case of an unscrupulous dealer trying to screw somebody.
Perhaps the OP would be willing to offer you some conservation advice. .
<< <i>
<< <i>
This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.
I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.
As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference. >>
I was referring to the 86-S DMPL, an impossible date, especially S/S.
I respectfully disagree about the no DMPL Rattlers, I own many!
no matter what the insert said.
<< <i>Dip it, wrap it in a taco bell napkin, put it in the window sill for a year , then flip it. >>
Love it!!! You've got the GREATEST sense of humor!!!
So here's a shot of the obverse post "conservation"...
Cheek looks a little more scratched up than before.
Cleaned up nicely though..... Lighting is different so don't get too wrapped up in comparisons here.
Mirror angle shot is before conservation measures.....
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>Acetone will do nothing with those spots. A simple acid "dip" (eg. EZ-Est, Jewel Luster) will work well. Dilute your solution and have fun. Rinse well please. Ain't rocket science
Nothing against Restoration Service, but this is not worth paying for in this instance. My guess - you'll end up with 64DMPL, which would be a lovely score. >>
Yup. Listen here.
Lance.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
I am hoping for the best for you, but would not be surprised to see 63+ or 64, no designation at all.
If I get a 63 and no designation, I'm cracking it again and putting it in my Dansco!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>Thanks for the good wishes!
If I get a 63 and no designation, I'm cracking it again and putting it in my Dansco! >>
I know, it is not an easy task to get PL designations, and DMPL requires the Heavens to open up and a voice to exclaim, DMPL, I approve!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
This is nothing like a tough date except for a lowball set. I'd guess more than a few are out there. Are they 5% of the available ones? VG's are probably rarer the 66's. I think this perhaps generous.
I'd guess that CDN AU Ask is close to 63 Bid, whose CDN Ask is surely not much less than 64 Bid. Lots of 85-CC 62-63 DMPLs, which all have some premium. Nice 64 examples go at quite a bit more than CDN Ask, sometimes a lot lot more.
As a note: In the rattler era, PCGS did not have a DMPL designation. Thus ordinary PLs and DMPLs were not designated differently, though many dealers and specialist collectors knew the difference. >>
I was referring to the 86-S DMPL, an impossible date, especially S/S.
I respectfully disagree about the no DMPL Rattlers, I own many! >>
>>
I respectfully agree that I am wrong on this I must have cracked them out without noticing. I can't believe how much money I left on the table in 1987
I also agree that 86-S is damn near impossible (I've never seen one and Bruce Amspacher is sadly gone, so I can't mine his encyclopedic wisdom on Morgans). If I miss an S/S you can pick me off at no premium over "market" for the regular "S". Great coin, BTW. You got screwed. Thanks for a look at a coin I would love to see in-hand.
Sadly, I never looked at anything but depth and cameo (0.5 sec) and (pathetically) didn't even notice the date on yours pictured. Could my scrambled brain have somehow said 86-CC? I am tempted to go back to a previous sig-line "Often wrong, never in doubt"
But I have no idea whatsoever how an 86-S is relevant to a thread on an 85-CC.
When people started to refute your comments, I was going to tell them to simmer down and look at your sig line ("Often wrong, never in doubt")......but you changed it on us.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.
Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.
>>
My CC :
5$ bills are WOW with the numbers - wanted:
02121809
04151865
Wanted - Flipper notes with the numbers 6-9 or 0-6-9 ON 1$ 2$ 5$ 10$ 20$
Wanted - 10$ Sereis 2013 - fancy Serial Numbers
Thought I'd send out a little reminder for some to review before sharing the outcome.
Any new guesses?
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
A year later. WOW!
I'll stick with the 64 and still hope for a PL for you!
Too many flow lines in fields for DMPL.
<< <i>In speaking with several graders, in several companies, the common answer is "hardness" of the mirrors. Impossible to explain, but easy to see if you have coins in front of you. In this particular coin, there is too much cartwheel effect to even be close, and in fact would most likely not get a PL designation if cracked out and sent raw. If sent in for a regrade, who knows. It most likely would stay the same unless PCGS wants to buy it back to meet their current standards, which wouldn't really matter anyway since there is not much premium for PL coins on this year.
Notice the "no cartwheel luster" on this current DMPL I sent in raw a month ago. This is how they have to be on both sides of course.
>>
What does this coin look like in hand? The page is so overly saturated I cant tell how deep the mirrors are.
<< <i>
Bearing in mind that all generalizations are bad, ...
<< <i>
<< <i>So here's a shot of the obverse post "conservation"...
Cheek looks a little more scratched up than before. >>
Do you think that the cheek had some strategically placed foreign substance that led to the field discoloration?
My guess 64 PL shot DMPL
I guess PCGS agreed:
Grade Here
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
SWEET!
A pretty sweet jump there!
And I have to thank ColonelJessup for helping to give me the budge and push to take the steps and risk in cracking it.
I did include the old green 64PL label with the coin on submission- as a bit of history and reminder, that it had been determined at least a PL historically, and so they might adjust their pops accordingly.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014