Home U.S. Coin Forum

Did PCGS really grade this Morgan an MS-65?

Ebay Item number 1190024511792

If so, that's unbelievable!

Comments

  • HighReliefHighRelief Posts: 3,720 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Very original coin and it sure does look like PCGS graded it MS65.
  • CoxeCoxe Posts: 11,139
    What's wrong with it? Not every 19th century coin needs to be blast white. Strike looks fine for the date. Marks are minimal and commensurate with the assigned grade. Looks wholly original and problem-free.
    Select Rarities -- DMPLs and VAMs
    NSDR - Life Member
    SSDC - Life Member
    ANA - Pay As I Go Member
  • lavalava Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭
    Grade obviously does not equate with eye appeal, and a good reason not to buy sight unseen, even if a coin is slabbed by PCGS.
    I brake for ear bars.
  • CoxeCoxe Posts: 11,139
    Exactly.
    Select Rarities -- DMPLs and VAMs
    NSDR - Life Member
    SSDC - Life Member
    ANA - Pay As I Go Member
  • BlindedByEgoBlindedByEgo Posts: 10,754 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He11, dip it out and resubmit for MS66.
  • CoxeCoxe Posts: 11,139
    Don't forget to bake it and send it across the street for an MS67* grade.
    Select Rarities -- DMPLs and VAMs
    NSDR - Life Member
    SSDC - Life Member
    ANA - Pay As I Go Member
  • My apologies please for questioning your expertise, but the strike on the reverse just don't look right to me. Anyway, what do I know? It could just be a bad picture. Thank you for your opinion.
  • WTCGWTCG Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭
    Coin looks fine to me.
    Follow me on Twitter @wtcgroup
    Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
  • ERER Posts: 7,345
    Fugly, but technically, why shouldn't it be a 65?
  • CoxeCoxe Posts: 11,139


    << <i>My apologies please for questioning your expertise, but the strike on the reverse just don't look right to me. Anyway, what do I know? It could just be a bad picture. Thank you for your opinion. >>



    That is marred plastic. Drives me nuts too. No apologies needed. We love peer review and few questions are bad questions.
    Select Rarities -- DMPLs and VAMs
    NSDR - Life Member
    SSDC - Life Member
    ANA - Pay As I Go Member
  • Steve27Steve27 Posts: 13,275 ✭✭✭
    " Fugly, but technically, why shouldn't it be a 65?"

    Because it has no luster. IMO this coin should grade no higher than 64 due to the lack of luster.
    "It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
  • Looks clean enough to merit 65. Agree with Coxe the problem with reverse is likely on the plastic. May be a scan, which doesn't show luster well. Strike actually looks decent for the date/mint. I'd never buy it though. Seller would do better with typically lousy eBay photos . . . .
    image
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,863 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Everyone's a Critic...image

    I like it and I bet the coin has lustre that just can not be seen in the photo.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • FrankcoinsFrankcoins Posts: 4,572 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Ebay Item number 1190024511792

    If so, that's unbelievable! >>



    It's original and undipped. Isn't that what everyone here cries that they want?
    Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
  • krankykranky Posts: 8,709 ✭✭✭
    I suspect that is a coin which has to be seen in-hand to be evaluated. For some reason coins with that kind of toning don't look very good in photos.

    New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.

  • I actually love that coin and it looks 65 to me

Leave a Comment

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