Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

GTG: 1882 CC Morgan - Revealed

Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,392 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 20, 2024 12:21PM in U.S. Coin Forum

Every year, I send in 1-2 coins purchased 30 years ago when I was a YN. I just got the grade on this one yesterday and was surprised. Curious what grade folks would assign. These are PCGS pics:


Update - Coin is UNC Details - 94 Altered Surfaces

Comments

  • Options
    Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 1,011 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coin.
    Looks like a 64+
    You said you were surprised so it may have received a higher grade. If it is good for you.

    Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
    Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA

  • Options
    DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,975 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is a coin I'd like to buy as a 64+, but I can easily see it in a 65 holder with that luster.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,502 ✭✭✭✭✭

    MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,092 ✭✭✭✭✭

    64

  • Options
    Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 4,805 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • Options
    blitzdudeblitzdude Posts: 5,612 ✭✭✭✭✭

    64 RGDS!

    The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.

  • Options
    CrepidoderaCrepidodera Posts: 303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    65

  • Options
    Joe_360Joe_360 Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess that I'll be the low man on the totem-pole. Lots of chatter on Liberties' face, (rim dings?), some dings on the reverse plus eagles chest. Milk spots by the A. R in dollar? MS63...

  • Options
    GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭

    MS-66 maybe ? Certainly an MS-65.

    Can't tell about DMPL or PL.

  • Options
    coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    MS64

  • Options
    mattnissmattniss Posts: 631 ✭✭✭✭

    Looks like a strong 64 to me.

  • Options
    scotty4449scotty4449 Posts: 684 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll say 65. A little chatter on the cheek but the fields look fairly clean and the luster is good.

  • Options
    DropdaflagDropdaflag Posts: 788 ✭✭✭✭

    I'm in the 64 camp.

  • Options
    lcoopielcoopie Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭✭✭

    63, no more.

    LCoopie = Les
  • Options
    johnny010johnny010 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭✭✭

    65

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,502 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoldFinger1969 said:
    MS-66 maybe ? Certainly an MS-65.

    Can't tell about DMPL or PL.

    There’s no “certainly” with respect to specific grades for uncirculated or Proof coins, when grading from images.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,392 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

    The TruViews for the entire submission are over-lit unfortunately - I’m disappointed, but that’s a topic for another thread.

    That said, no one has gotten the answer, but your hypothesis is correct - there is a hidden issue here somewhere. Coin received UNC Details 94 - Altered Surfaces. Whatever led to that grade, I missed it prior to submission. Will followup next week with more pics when the coin is delivered. Hopefully I can find the issue!

  • Options
    AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,628 ✭✭✭✭✭

    First thought was 64+

    bob :)
    vegas baby!

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • Options
    jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 9,612 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow, I didn't post my 63 grade as I'm not very educated on Morgan's, but would never have noticed a details 94 grade.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • Options
    Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 1,011 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is fun to GTG no doubt about it. However, this is a prime example of how difficult it can be to accurately grade a coin from images.
    With that said what a surprise!

    Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
    Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA

  • Options
    metalmeistermetalmeister Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Hmmm, sorry 'bout that. Coin looks fine. Maybe some rim damage dropped it back to details grade?

    email: ccacollectibles@yahoo.com

    100% Positive BST transactions
  • Options
    ashelandasheland Posts: 22,909 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2024 1:27PM

    Love that! :D
    My guess was also 64, but now that he mentions altered surfaces, I can see halos around the stars, but it looks very mild. 64 otherwise I’d say.

  • Options
    DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,975 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @MFeld said:
    MS64. The obverse appears to be over-lit, so perhaps some flaws are being masked.

    The TruViews for the entire submission are over-lit unfortunately - I’m disappointed, but that’s a topic for another thread.

    Coincidentally, there happens to be an active thread for just that. If I were you, I’d voice your displeasure there. Now is the time to pile on while we have some momentum going, that is until PCGS wants to acknowledge the issue.

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1099740/pcgs-trueviews-what-the-heck-is-going-on/p1

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • Options
    logger7logger7 Posts: 8,251 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd agree with the most seasoned professionals here, and say very likely MS64.

    I bought a GSA same date and mm this week from a local guy and it's close to this one.

  • Options
    Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,392 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 10, 2024 10:19AM

    I have it back now and took some fresh photos. The only explanation I can see is a potential issue around the stars as @asheland mentioned. Does anyone have any thoughts on altered surfaces?

  • Options
    coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If it was over dipped/cleaned causing those halos wouldn't it get the 92 and not 94 designation? I thought 94 was something added to the surface of coin to enhance its appeal. Was it puttied?

  • Options
    Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’d like to get the experts opinions.

    From all the images, to me it looks like a standard issue CC dollar from the Treasury releases from the early ‘70’s.

    Successful BST transactions with 170 members. Recent: Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug

Leave a Comment

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