Raw toned Morgan bought on ebay...should MS66 @ PCGS

fivecents · April 29, 2005 5:46AM

You can't tell from my crappy images, but this coin has over an 90% chance it will make MS66 at PCGS. It is in a capital plastics holder.

F117ASR · April 29, 2005 5:47AM

Hard for me to tell with the toning but looks pretty nice.

kryptonitecomics · April 29, 2005 5:50AM

Looks pretty clean in the pictures....good luck and congrats on your purchase

nepbrs44 · April 29, 2005 5:50AM

<< You can't tell from my crappy images, but this coin has over an 90% chance it will make MS66 at PCGS. It is in a capital plastics holder.

What is the Capital Plastics Holder Grading??

LucyBop · April 29, 2005 5:51AM

Here is my raw 1881 S, I am hoping to get it into a GEM five holder.

nepbrs44 · April 29, 2005 5:53AM

<< Here is my raw 1881 S, I am hoping to get it into a GEM five holder.

>>

WOW Lucy that is almost as pretty as you!

clevegreg · April 29, 2005 5:54AM

That is a beautiful coin Lucy...it looks like a shot 66...but not the original posters coin.. 64 tops

Greg

K6AZ · April 29, 2005 5:55AM

Here's an 81-S I got into a PCGS 66 holder last year:

clevegreg · April 29, 2005 5:58AM

Nice coin!

fivecents · April 29, 2005 6:53AM

<< That is a beautiful coin Lucy...it looks like a shot 66...but not the original posters coin.. 64 tops >>

It's a lock MS65 shot MS66....want to bet this coin will at least MS65?? Huh, do ya?

clevegreg · April 29, 2005 11:14AM

It is a nice coin, based on your pics it just looks a little softly struck to 66, it could 65 . I will bet you that it wont't 66 .

Grading from pics is always tough.

K6AZ · April 29, 2005 11:24AM

Here's another 81-S I have in a PCGS 66 holder:

Bikingnut · April 29, 2005 11:37AM

I like the toning on that last one.

JDouglas · April 29, 2005 12:01PM

the coin in the first post will not even come close to 65, sorry it is not even a close call

coingame2000 · April 29, 2005 12:12PM

I'll bet that it won't make MS65, let alone MS66 at PCGS.

Mike

BillJones · April 29, 2005 12:14PM

<< the coin in the first post will not even come close to 65, sorry it is not even a close call >>

Yes, I agree. Of all the Morgan dollars, 1881-S is the one that comes VERY NICE, QUITE OFTEN, and this coin is well below average. Frankly I don't like the color on the obverse (possible AT), and the reverse is weaker than average in the center and looks dull.

I don't want to be mean, but I think you will be wasting you money. If it gets a body bag or anything less than MS-65, you will have wasted your money.

tradedollarnut · April 29, 2005 12:19PM

The original coin is more than likely a body bag - if not then 64 tops based on the image.

Myqqy · April 29, 2005 12:30PM

Personally, I can't see the first coin getting into a 66 holder either- but I would love to hear the results if you submit it!
K6AZ- those are some sharp looking morgans!

Sunnywood · April 29, 2005 12:34PM

coingame2000 and I recently submitted a truly amazing monster rainbow '81-S to PCGS (and believe me, unlike most, I don't use the term "monster rainbow" lightly). The coin is technically wonderful with a perfect cheek, incredible luster, and eye-popping high-voltage color. Dave Schweitz graded the coin a 67 when I showed it to him at Long Beach. It came back in a PCGS MS65 holder, probably the single most ridiculous grade I have ever received from PCGS. Don't EVER think you can guess with 90% certainty what PCGS will do ... it is just nonsense to think so.

Best,
Sunnywood

K6AZ · April 29, 2005 12:40PM

<< coingame2000 and I recently submitted a truly amazing monster rainbow '81-S to PCGS (and believe me, unlike most, I don't use the term "monster rainbow" lightly). The coin is technically wonderful with a perfect cheek, incredible luster, and eye-popping high-voltage color. Dave Schweitz graded the coin a 67 when I showed it to him at Long Beach. It came back in a PCGS MS65 holder, probably the single most ridiculous grade I have ever received from PCGS. Don't EVER think you can guess with 90% certainty what PCGS will do ... it is just nonsense to think so.

Best,
Sunnywood >>

PCGS has a habit of grading coins according to their numbers. In other words, common coins like the 81-S is very difficult to get high grades on, while better dates such as the 83-S or 92-CC they are lenient on. I have a blazing 82-S that is struck so hard the obverse fields are concave, and they hit it with a 65 even though the cheek is almost spotless and there are only a few very light marks in the left field.

I've only made two 66's at PCGS, the one shown above with the russet toning and a blast white 99-O that I was figuring to be a 65. Every coin I have sent in expecting a 66 has come back as a 65.

JDouglas · April 29, 2005 12:47PM

it has nothing to do with how PCGS would grade this coin, or what date it is. Look at the coin, if you are not seeing obvious luster breaks all over the face, the top of the cap and completely throughout the front hair, you probably should not buy any raw coins.

Sunnywood · April 29, 2005 12:57PM

Hey, JDouglas that's my icon !!!! Well, I can't claim any proprietary rights in it, since I no longer own the coin. It was the J-60 Gobrecht PCGS MS62 from the Benson II Sale. I bought it at the sale, with Dr. Benson bidding me up from the sidelines (that was annoying !!). But I later sold it along with all my proof seated dollars. Anyway ... I don't believe in grading coins from pictures, nor do I believe in thinking you can guess what PCGS will do (unless you are a full-time seasoned submitter ... but even the TOP crackout guys get hosed plenty). It's like thinking you can outsmart the stock market ... not too swift.

Best,
Sunnywood

robertpr · April 29, 2005 1:06PM

Just got my latest grades posted by NGC...I had an 1881-S on that submission and it posted at MS66PL

I should have it back in hand by Monday for imaging.

clevegreg · April 29, 2005 2:12PM

Hey Fivecents, where did you go?

Warman · April 29, 2005 2:24PM

Sorry to be negative, but doesn't look like a 66 to me. Strike is not strong enough for S-mint and toning looks artificial. Sorry----hope I'm wrong.

Deadhorse · April 29, 2005 2:27PM

Regarding the original coin posted. That thumb print at 11 o'clock on the reverse isn't going to help your case any either. The toning is questionable as well.

BB wouldn't surprise me, but if it does get slabbed, I'm betting on a 63. That year with that coin isn't anywhere near a 66, sorry.

coinbuf · April 29, 2005 2:58PM

As tight as PCGS is right now you can forget that 66 grade. I just sent in a perfect 97-S in an ICG 65 and thay DNC'd it.

Chris

Myqqy · April 29, 2005 3:48PM

Don't EVER think you can guess with 90% certainty what PCGS will do ... it is just nonsense to think so.

Good point......

Hey Fivecents, where did you go?

fivecents · April 29, 2005 8:38PM

Sorry guys...I went to bed, a guys got to sleep you know.

Like I said in my first post: "you can't tell it from my crappy pictures", but I see you "experts" think you can grade from these pictures.

I am willing to send this coin to a third party (forum member) and have them send it to PCGS...to make sure I am not playing games. I would love to make a bet it would at least MS65 and take these posters money. Instead I will settle for everyone eating crow.

Warning: This picture sucks....this coin has killer luster and VERY clean surfaces...it is the photograph.(you have been warned)
Everyone please post your smack talk about how this coin will BB or MS64, because it is going to PCGS for grading.
Maybe K6AZ or Russ would be willing to be the third party to submit this coin for me.

I am going to work, so everyone have fun and I will check back later.

fivecents · April 29, 2005 9:18PM

<< Don't EVER think you can guess with 90% certainty what PCGS will do ... it is just nonsense to think so. >>

I said it had a 90% CHANCE, not certainty....the only nonsense is you misquoting me Sunnywood.

robertpr · April 29, 2005 11:43PM

OK there's not a shot the coin will go into a 6 slab. The toning looks iffy, but maybe not enough for a bodybag.

I give the coin a 50% shot of getting bagged. Furthermore, if it does get graded, I'll give the coin a 70% shot at going into a 4 holder or lower, a 25% shot at going into a 5 holder, and a 5% shot at getting into a 6 holder.

If I'm wrong, I'll make a seperate thread where I admit that I was wrong and you were right, and I'll tell everybody on the forum what a great eBay cherrypicker you are.

Warman · April 29, 2005 11:51PM

Don't be so defensive, remember you are the "expert" that boldly told us all it was definitely a 66. We are just trying to bring you down to earth because we all know the frustration and anger that happens when we get a BB or a lower grade than we think, we're just trying to save you the grief. But having said that, if you keep posting crap messages like your last one-hell with ya then.

K6AZ · April 30, 2005 12:27AM

<< Sorry guys...I went to bed, a guys got to sleep you know.

Like I said in my first post: "you can't tell it from my crappy pictures", but I see you "experts" think you can grade from these pictures.

I am willing to send this coin to a third party (forum member) and have them send it to PCGS...to make sure I am not playing games. I would love to make a bet it would at least MS65 and take these posters money. Instead I will settle for everyone eating crow.

Warning: This picture sucks....this coin has killer luster and VERY clean surfaces...it is the photograph.(you have been warned)
Everyone please post your smack talk about how this coin will BB or MS64, because it is going to PCGS for grading.
Maybe K6AZ or Russ would be willing to be the third party to submit this coin for me.

I am going to work, so everyone have fun and I will check back later.

>>

Paul, I'd be happy to send it in for you. I'm working on putting together a submission right now.

anablep · April 30, 2005 12:57AM

AT evident on obverse.

BB at PCGS. UNC details Net MS60 at ANACS.

Don't waste your $$ on submitting this coin.

An 1881-S has to be brilliant and very well struck for it to even be a 65, which this one is not.

Sorry.

K6AZ · April 30, 2005 1:04AM

I think some of you are being too harsh. Paul admits his images aren't the best, and I've personally looked at several of his coins in person, and they looked far better than his images. I'm seeing enough on this coin to go with NT. The only question is what it will grade.

Sunnywood · April 30, 2005 1:20AM

<< 

<< Don't EVER think you can guess with 90% certainty what PCGS will do ... it is just nonsense to think so. >>

I said it had a 90% CHANCE, not certainty....the only nonsense is you misquoting me Sunnywood.

>>

OK, I'm only ging to do this because it is a Saturday morning, it is raining here, and I am bored. Otherwise I wouldn't bother being this annoying.

This has nothing to do with coins ... if you say that something "has a 90% chance of happening," that assertion is essentially - in fact precisely - synonymous with saying that you are "90% certain" that it will happen. It means you are estimating the probability to be 90% or p = 0.9, regardless of the choice of words "chance" or "certainty."

If I flip a coin three times in succession, there is a 12.5% chance that I will come up with tails three times in a row. I can also say that there is a 12.5% certainty that tails will come up three times in a row. No difference.

Of course if you remove the reference to 90%, then there is a difference between "chance" and "certainty" !!! "Chance" implies some probability greater than zero and less than 100%, so 0 < p < 1, whereas "certainty" of course denotes p = 1.

Bottom line: I did not misquote you, nor misrepresent your assertion.

clevegreg · April 30, 2005 1:42AM

Very well said, especially for a Saturday morning

Greg

Warman · April 30, 2005 1:44AM

I admit, I'm no grading expert and maybe it is just the images, but unless it is an optical DElusion, how can it be naturally toned with the silver around the stars showing ? That seems like classic artificial toning. I have some nicely toned Morgans, and they all are equally toned around the stars.

K6AZ · April 30, 2005 1:49AM

<< I admit, I'm no grading expert and maybe it is just the images, but unless it is an optical DElusion, how can it be naturally toned with the silver around the stars showing ? That seems like classic artificial toning. I have some nicely toned Morgans, and they all are equally toned around the stars.

>>

The silver around the stars is caused by die erosion, which creates a different surface texture around the periphery of the coin. Here is another example of that effect:

greghansen · April 30, 2005 2:36AM

The silver around the stars is caused by die erosion, which creates a different surface texture around the periphery of the coin

Well said. The toning 'shadow' produced by the different surface textures towards the outer aspects of the coin are quite natural and NOT an indictment of AT. Regardless of whether its AT or NT, however, the toning is unattractive IMO. Plus the strike is soft for an '81-S. Even if that coin is 'clean as a whistle' and with blazing luster in hand, it will never go higher than 65 IMO. I don't need the coin in hand to see the strike limitations and the toning pattern. The light strike and ugly toning (again, just my opinion) will limit it. It would not suprise me at all, by the way, for it to be body bagged.

Elcontador · April 30, 2005 2:37AM

As a series, Morgans aren't all that difficult to grade. Just remember which ones usually are struck well and are almost always attractive for the grade -- like the 1881 S -- and which ones are graded more leniently (the CCs), and most of the time, you can probably guess the grade (though I wouldn't do with certainty just on an image).

I'll pass on the matter of the coin's toning. I would not buy a silver coin with this color. These coins usually come fully struck and relatively problem free in 5. This coin just doesn't have it. Another reason I wouldn't buy it is the Sasquatch fingerprint in the open area on the reverse. I am not a Morgan expert, but the breast feathers aren't strongly stuck, and you have something funky going on re the viewer's lt. wing. The coin is also too dark to evaluate what's going on re Miss Liberty's cheek and neck. Sunnywood knows his Morgans, and I wouldn't go against his comments about the coin, either.

If this coin was a lock 6, it wouldn't be sold raw on E-Bay. It seems to me that the seller knows something about the coin which the buyer does not know. I really don't understand why so many people think they can make money buying coins sight unseen on E-Bay (if it's not in hand, it's sight unseen in my book), but that's a whole different topic.

Lastly, anyone who thinks they know what PCGS will do, well, more often than not, unless he is a volume submitter, this person will get a painful education.

K6AZ · April 30, 2005 2:53AM

<< The silver around the stars is caused by die erosion, which creates a different surface texture around the periphery of the coin

Well said. The toning 'shadow' produced by the different surface textures towards the outer aspects of the coin are quite natural and NOT an indictment of AT. Regardless of whether its AT or NT, however, the toning is unattractive IMO. Plus the strike is soft for an '81-S. Even if that coin is 'clean as a whistle' and with blazing luster in hand, it will never go higher than 65 IMO. I don't need the coin in hand to see the strike limitations and the toning pattern. The light strike and ugly toning (again, just my opinion) will limit it. It would not suprise me at all, by the way, for it to be body bagged. >>

Greg, sometimes darker toning like this will give the appearance of a soft strike. I'm waiting to hear from Paul to see if he wants to send it to me. If he does, I'll take a good image of it and give my opinion.

Coinhusker1 · April 30, 2005 3:32AM

<< 
Paul, I'd be happy to send it in for you. I'm working on putting together a submission right now. >>

This is a great idea. If Eric could image it, it would be interesting to compare with FiveCent's image.

fivecents · April 30, 2005 5:57AM

I will be sending it to Eric to submit. I am a member of PCGS and can submit to PCGS, I am doing this to prevent any mistrust issues. So a thirdparty will be involved.
I will say this a third time...The image is crappy. I posted this picture to compare with the slabbed coin, when I eventually get the coin back in a PCGS holder.
If I am wrong I will gladly come on these boards and say: "I was wrong".

Just remember that I stated in the first post..."you can't tell the grade from my crappy picture". Everyone has ignored this statement and started grading the coin from this image. Yes,the coin will look KILLER when Eric images it.

LucyBop · April 30, 2005 6:01AM

Good luck Daddy-o, I hope you do well!

fivecents · April 30, 2005 6:11AM

I have decided to take ten $10 bets that this coin will at least MS65 at PCGS. Please post if you are interested. With all this big talk it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Greg...you in? Remember this picture is a BAD representation of the coin(final warning)

Last time I did this Russ lost the bet big time.(sorry for the reminder Russ)

Warman · April 30, 2005 6:37AM

<< I have decided to take ten $10 bets that this coin will at least MS65 at PCGS. Please post if you are interested. With all this big talk it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Greg...you in? Remember this picture is a BAD representation of the coin(final warning)

Last time I did this Russ lost the bet big time.(sorry for the reminder Russ)

>>

Good idea, that's one way to make up for the loss of what you paid for a supposed ms66 Morgan on ebay.

clevegreg · April 30, 2005 6:41AM

I thought the coin was a 90% lock to 66.....what's with the bets that it will 65 now

I'll bet you $100.00 that it doesn't 66 at PCGS

TommyType · April 30, 2005 6:43AM

<< ...but not the original posters coin.. 64 tops

Greg >>

Oh, come on!! You said 64 tops!!

I think betting on 65 is a fair bet at this point.

(I'm a little stinker today).

fivecents · April 30, 2005 7:09AM

<< Oh, come on!! You said 64 tops!! >>

That's what I am saying. Greg your the one flip flopping.

TommyType · April 30, 2005 7:16AM

I'm doing my best to get you some bets!

My original opinion was that your coin lacked the luster to make 65.....I just didn't post it.

But now that you've said the luster is good, I'm not putting my $10 on the table.

Raw toned Morgan bought on ebay...should MS66 @ PCGS

Comments

Leave a Comment