Opinions needed on `91-CC Morgan pcgs ??

lava · February 23, 2003 11:15AM

I think I have the bugs worked out on this link. Hope I'm doing it right. Need opinions on this morgan graded by PCGS. Whatcha think?

1891-CC Morgan

fantasiize · February 23, 2003 11:21AM

It appears to not be unc.

Only 2/3 of the coin obv showed up for me. Based on what I see, my best guess would be au50.

K6AZ · February 23, 2003 11:48AM

I really can't tell with just a partial of the obverse. I would need to see a full image of both sides.

Dog97 · February 23, 2003 11:51AM

Got a bunch of med size hits on the face and some big hits in the field so I will say it does look 61 on the part I see.

BillJones · February 23, 2003 11:53AM

From what I can see, it appears to be no better than MS-63. If there is a rub in the field, which are hard to see from the limited amount of the coin that I can see, it could be an AU-58 or 55.

lava · February 23, 2003 11:58AM

Here is a better image, showing the entire obverse.

2nd Image

stman · February 23, 2003 12:06PM

Hey Lava, how are you? Since there is no rev Pic, I like to see that also to check the breast feathers.

I'm gonna take a wild stab and say Pcgs graded this 64. And you and probably me think it's got too many hits and feel it's 63. Am I close?

fantasiize · February 23, 2003 12:06PM

Better picture (and better grade, at least from me) AU58.

What appears to me to be rub on the chin/jaw/fields, keep it from UNC.

agfox · February 23, 2003 12:09PM

I'll play, she's been beat up poor girl.

62 at best, probably 61.

K6AZ · February 23, 2003 12:13PM

I'm going to take a guess, and that is all it is not being able to see the reverse, that this is graded MS62. PCGS does give quiet a break to CC Morgans.

FC57Coins · February 23, 2003 12:13PM

I agree with the fox - she looks like she's been in a couple of saloon brawls - poor thing!

BillJones · February 23, 2003 12:13PM

I’d say MS-63, but I have seen coins like this in MS-64 holders of late (although they won’t sell any of them to me). CC dollars are like early coins. The services tend to grade them easier.

lava · February 23, 2003 12:17PM

PCGS graded this ms63 dmpl. It is a spitting eagle type. The reverse is a clean, sharp 64. For the obverse, I posted the worst shot I could manage to take. The cheek is a little rough. I would never expect this to grade 64. I am wondering in anyone thinks this might ever grade lower? Thanks for sharing your opinions.

agfox · February 23, 2003 12:20PM

From that pic I don't see dmpl at all

It must be better in hand?

To answer your question, I'd have to admit I'd be worried about a downgrade.

BillJones · February 23, 2003 12:23PM

I did not see the dpl on this coin. I guess I'd have to see it in person to notice it.

As for grading lower, anything is possible, but this coin is pretty standard for a CC dollar in MS-63. If it were an 1881-S you might never see it in a MS-63 holder.

K6AZ · February 23, 2003 12:28PM

Interesting, I am not surprised about the DMPL part, because photos at certain angles will not show it. But as for the 63 grade, that is surprising. I really believe if this was a non-CC it wouldn't go higher than 62. What are your thoughts lava? Do you think it is a 63, or do you think they bumped it?

stman · February 23, 2003 12:29PM

I really wasn't looking for dmpl, since you were showing mainly the face I felt that is what you were concerned about. Hey at least I hit the grade of what I thought it was.

lava · February 23, 2003 12:39PM

I agree with everyone who has said that if not for being a 91-CC, this one doesn't make it at 63. It is dmpl, and the reverse is nice, if you ever get that far. That cheek seems to have a number of things going on, different contact marks at different angles, and .... well, you get the idea. I don't mind paying $625 for a nice `91-CC dmpl is 63, and the mirrors have helped highligt the eagle's spit, but I am debating if I got enough coin for my buck.

stman · February 23, 2003 12:43PM

I would say if the mirrors are good and have good contrast, it's fine. Otherwise as you know if those hits bother you, they will always bother you everytime you look at it. Like you said.... the rev is great if you get that far.

Dog97 · February 23, 2003 12:59PM

That fat fingered keydown in my last post was sposed to say 62 based on the small pict. I'd still say 62 based on your big pict but it would be a high 62 possibly 63 because your pict is pixelated somewhat and may exagerate the marks. If so, technicaly it's there because the strike is sharp & it looks to have at least med contrast based just on the frost I see. What is the discoloration around UNIM & stars R-4,5,6?

K6AZ · February 23, 2003 1:58PM

Since it does have the mirrors as you say, I don't think you did bad on it. DMPL 91-CCs are tough, and a 64 would be sky high. I have a PL 78-CC 63 that has a pretty good hit on the jaw, but it is flashy and well worth what I paid for it.

Gilbert · February 23, 2003 9:02PM

All I can say is wow; I'll never be happy with the numbers on the slab.

Actually, if I were in the market for this coin, went to a dealer who had it, of course I would have to pay his asking price, but, my comment would be: Just don't tell me it is a 63.

I know, I know. I just don't have to agree with it.

Of course, that is based on the image represented on my monitor.

You know, maybe PCGS (because it was graded by them) decided to revert back to Sheldon's original scale, and they are really saying this coin is worth 63 times that of a basal state one. They just forgot to publicize it.

Opinions needed on `91-CC Morgan pcgs ??

Comments

Leave a Comment