<< <i>I've got to admit, that it certainly does LOOK better, though it's not a "coin in hand". I'm not so inured or set in my ways that I'm unable to learn something new. If I ever do get this kind of disposable cash, I'll keep the info in mind. In the mean time, I'll await for you to show the grade. >>
erroid, 99% of the coins that I post in these Guess the Grades are already TPG'd... so I hope that everyone will walk away with something from these posts
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Not for nothing but I'd resubmit that 2nd piece, looks a hell of a lot better than AU50.
Interesting notion. It certainly is not going to grade LESS than AU50 and with the steep ramp in prices through the AU grade range, getting an AU53 or AU55 label on it would certainly be worth cost of submission. Might be a thousand dollar improvement!
<< <i> Not for nothing but I'd resubmit that 2nd piece, looks a hell of a lot better than AU50.
Interesting notion. It certainly is not going to grade LESS than AU50 and with the steep ramp in prices through the AU grade range, getting an AU53 or AU55 label on it would certainly be worth cost of submission. Might be a thousand dollar improvement! >>
I'll post pics to this thread once in hand as it's in the loving care of the Postal Orifice now via transit.
There is always the case that there is something not seen on the sellers pics that was the possible factor for this to have been NET graded
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
AU50! Where is the wear that woud suggest such a grade? Even if the fields were scuffed, I don't see 50. Perhaps a crossover form NGC 55 with ANY specified for the minimum on a bad day for the downgrade. Nonetheless, that slider is a great example of buying the right coin. Very nice acquisition. This is also one of the worst dates for locating a prooflike. Some of the best of the PLs for 84-S can be found in AU58 holders.
edited to add>>>Get a gold football sticker on that one. Maybe send to regrade first though.
<< <i>AU50! Where is the wear that woud suggest such a grade? Even if the fields were scuffed, I don't see 50. Perhaps a crossover form NGC 55 with ANY specified for the minimum on a bad day for the downgrade. Nonetheless, that slider is a great example of buying the right coin. Very nice acquisition. This is also one of the worst dates for locating a prooflike. Some of the best of the PLs for 84-S can be found in AU58 holders.
edited to add>>>Get a gold football sticker on that one. Maybe send to regrade first though. >>
Will do as I'm working on a small pile of these now
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
The 1884-S is the most unjustly penalized date of the Morgan series by graders. They all know they do it too. It is the only date I would also recommend a slider as the best bet to a set collector. A patiently selected AU58 will beat the pants off of most UNCs in eye appeal.
<< <i>No AU50 has full breast feathers like that. There's some reason beyond just the deep cuts on the cheek as to why this piece graded AU50. >>
GoldenEyeNumismatics, I'm posting 800x800 sized pics and am trying to ugly this Morgan down with just some quick free hand shots... Yes NO AU50 looks like this, yet there is no mysterious problem as to why it was down graded.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
My guess is, the closer it gets to 58, the pricier the coin will be, and heaven forbid a great example of an 1884-S like this gets the grade it deserves...
Totally undergraded...
Always looking for attractive rim toned Morgan and Peace dollars in PCGS or (older) ANA/ANACS holders!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
I don't think there is any kind of devious effort to undergrade this coin If the coin is the one originally pictured, then it is not uncirculated, and not likely au58 or 55 either the last pictures you took are kind of dark, and hard to tell
<< <i>It doesn't even look like the same coin at all.
The original seller's pix made it look REALLY BAD!
Judging by what little I did I really don't know what to think - let alone say!
This drives Home the point that ALL "Grade this coin" threads are basically useless.
ONE thing got proven - NO COIN can be graded accurately from ANY picture! >>
Boom,
I agree fully with you on this.
Usually grading any coin from images doesn't cut it; you really need to have the coin in hand to properly assess it. Broadstruck has a very keen eye and he can sniff out a choice coin far better than I can.
The seller's images are terrible and I'm sort of surprised that Broadstruck even boght the coin based on those images.
Your imaging has once again proven, Broadstruck, that you do have an exceptional eye for nice coins improperly imaged.
I now have to say that this coin is more of a solid AU 58, IMHO, based on the wear shown in your images. The coin is very - very nice.
Mike Hayes ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
<< <i>I don't think there is any kind of devious effort to undergrade this coin If the coin is the one originally pictured, then it is not uncirculated, and not likely au58 or 55 either the last pictures you took are kind of dark, and hard to tell >>
No conclusions can be drawn from one coin, but the 1884-S is, as a rule, notoriously undergraded in AU and MS compared to just about any other date. No way this coin is only a 50 with an 'O' mint mark, IMO. In my experience, I'd say '84-S is THE most chronically undergraded date in the series.
And all that does is exacerbate the 'condition rarity' status and skew the pop reports.
<< <i>No AU50 has full breast feathers like that. There's some reason beyond just the deep cuts on the cheek as to why this piece graded AU50. >>
GoldenEyeNumismatics, I'm posting 800x800 sized pics and am trying to ugly this Morgan down with just some quick free hand shots... Yes NO AU50 looks like this, yet there is no mysterious problem as to why it was down graded. >>
It just seems hard to believe that 2 graders and a finalizer could be off by that much. I'd send that to HRH for review and comment.
Your images strengthen my opinion that the coin is a good candidate for resubmission. Getting bumped upt AU53 or perhaps even AU55 would be a pretty successful deal. Good luck on whatever you choose to do with the coin.
I just do not see any rub or weakness on the coin that would grade your 84-S AU. I would grade it MS61-62 from what I can see from your pictures. They are tough on grading the 84-S, but the Finalizers were out to lunch on this one.
<< <i>The 1884-S is the most unjustly penalized date of the Morgan series by graders. They all know they do it too. It is the only date I would also recommend a slider as the best bet to a set collector. A patiently selected AU58 will beat the pants off of most UNCs in eye appeal. >>
Would it be fair to assume that a really nice 58 would have been a superb unc?
<< <i>The 1884-S is the most unjustly penalized date of the Morgan series by graders. They all know they do it too. It is the only date I would also recommend a slider as the best bet to a set collector. A patiently selected AU58 will beat the pants off of most UNCs in eye appeal. >>
Would it be fair to assume that a really nice 58 would have been a superb unc? >>
Yes, and isn't that a funny thing? Most of the MS63-MS64 of that date got light circulation, while the maintained UNCs were the basal ones. In reality, 84-S was long accepted as a rare date. So they were held by collectors. Collectors used to lightly clean their coins as an accepted practice. Some of that is dismissed (cabinet friction) but a lot are now AU53-AU58 sliders by our standards.
Comments
Very well struck!
<< <i>I've got to admit, that it certainly does LOOK better, though it's not a "coin in hand". I'm not so inured or set in my ways that I'm unable to learn something new. If I ever do get this kind of disposable cash, I'll keep the info in mind. In the mean time, I'll await for you to show the grade. >>
erroid, 99% of the coins that I post in these Guess the Grades are already TPG'd... so I hope that everyone will walk away with something from these posts
Seller had 2 PCGS 1884-S in the same grade at the same ask... yet one of these coins doesn't look like the other.
Here's the second example -
And here once more is the first -
Here is the second example of what a AU50 Morgan generally looks like surface condition wise.
<< <i>Those 2 specimen aren'e even remotely close to the same grade! >>
One eagle is a bald an proud AU50!
<< <i>Those 2 specimen aren'e even remotely close to the same grade! >>
Too late to take your bet?
Nice coin for the grade!
Between this & the 52-S FBL thread, it's enough to really make one wonder!
Wow!
<< <i>
<< <i>Those 2 specimen aren'e even remotely close to the same grade! >>
Too late to take your bet?
Nice coin for the grade! >>
Thanx... I had to post the grade early as I didn't want Boom to have to live in a cardboard box after the bet payouts!
Edited to Add: I was just happy to see a thread of mine break 50 without going POOF!
<< <i>Thanks Braudstruck, for a VERY informative post! >>
Your welcome erraud!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Those 2 specimen aren'e even remotely close to the same grade! >>
Too late to take your bet?
Nice coin for the grade! >>
Thanx... I had to post the grade early as I didn't want Boom to have to live in a cardboard box after the bet payouts!
Edited to Add: I was just happy to see a thread of mine break 50 without going POOF!
I thought he was gonna get to choose a title by time this thread ended...
I know nothing!:
I know nothing!:
That's it - I've lost it!
All these crazy threads - I'm officially nuts!
I DO KNOW WASHINGTON QUARTERS 1932-1964!!
I think...
I know nothing!:
I know nothing!:
<< <i>OOps, sorry Broadstruck, I don't type worth a damn. Not for nothing but I'd resubmit that 2nd piece, looks a hell of a lot better than AU50. >>
Nope, as I have Olympic Fever and am Going For Gold... I'm shooting to break TDN's record for Gold Stickers!
Interesting notion. It certainly is not going to grade LESS than AU50 and with the steep ramp in prices through the AU grade range, getting an AU53 or AU55 label on it would certainly be worth cost of submission. Might be a thousand dollar improvement!
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i> Not for nothing but I'd resubmit that 2nd piece, looks a hell of a lot better than AU50.
Interesting notion. It certainly is not going to grade LESS than AU50 and with the steep ramp in prices through the AU grade range, getting an AU53 or AU55 label on it would certainly be worth cost of submission. Might be a thousand dollar improvement! >>
I'll post pics to this thread once in hand as it's in the loving care of the Postal Orifice now via transit.
There is always the case that there is something not seen on the sellers pics that was the possible factor for this to have been NET graded
Not me!
edited to add>>>Get a gold football sticker on that one. Maybe send to regrade first though.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
I thought the rev was maybe 55
and would carry the grade up a little
Does the reverse EVER carry the grade up
or am I on the wrong track with this thinking?
<< <i>AU50! Where is the wear that woud suggest such a grade? Even if the fields were scuffed, I don't see 50. Perhaps a crossover form NGC 55 with ANY specified for the minimum on a bad day for the downgrade. Nonetheless, that slider is a great example of buying the right coin. Very nice acquisition. This is also one of the worst dates for locating a prooflike. Some of the best of the PLs for 84-S can be found in AU58 holders.
edited to add>>>Get a gold football sticker on that one. Maybe send to regrade first though. >>
Will do as I'm working on a small pile of these now
Coin looks like it has AU 55 wear - and the grade of 50 might be because its a bit baggy.
Nice coin, regardless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>OOps, sorry Broadstruck, I don't type worth a damn. Not for nothing but I'd resubmit that 2nd piece, looks a hell of a lot better than AU50. >>
Thanx!
sweet score as we now await your re sub grades...any other date almost...i'd call it a 64
I'm quite happy with this as I see nothing ugly that would have been a reason for net grading.
On another note I also bought a NGC MS63 toned commem off the same dealer that is going back in the morning as it's a market graded super slider.
The original seller's pix made it look REALLY BAD!
Judging by what little I did I really don't know what to think - let alone say!
This drives Home the point that ALL "Grade this coin" threads are basically useless.
ONE thing got proven - NO COIN can be graded accurately from ANY picture!
either one shows wear, IMO
it's easier to see on the original though
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>No AU50 has full breast feathers like that. There's some reason beyond just the deep cuts on the cheek as to why this piece graded AU50. >>
GoldenEyeNumismatics, I'm posting 800x800 sized pics and am trying to ugly this Morgan down with just some quick free hand shots... Yes NO AU50 looks like this, yet there is no mysterious problem as to why it was down graded.
Totally undergraded...
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
If the coin is the one originally pictured, then it is not uncirculated, and not likely au58 or 55 either
the last pictures you took are kind of dark, and hard to tell
<< <i>It doesn't even look like the same coin at all.
The original seller's pix made it look REALLY BAD!
Judging by what little I did I really don't know what to think - let alone say!
This drives Home the point that ALL "Grade this coin" threads are basically useless.
ONE thing got proven - NO COIN can be graded accurately from ANY picture!
Boom,
I agree fully with you on this.
Usually grading any coin from images doesn't cut it; you really need to have the coin in hand
to properly assess it. Broadstruck has a very keen eye and he can sniff out a choice coin far
better than I can.
The seller's images are terrible and I'm sort of surprised that Broadstruck even
boght the coin based on those images.
Your imaging has once again proven, Broadstruck, that you do have an exceptional eye
for nice coins improperly imaged.
I now have to say that this coin is more of a solid AU 58, IMHO, based on the wear shown
in your images. The coin is very - very nice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>I don't think there is any kind of devious effort to undergrade this coin
If the coin is the one originally pictured, then it is not uncirculated, and not likely au58 or 55 either
the last pictures you took are kind of dark, and hard to tell >>
No conclusions can be drawn from one coin, but the 1884-S is, as a rule, notoriously undergraded in AU and MS compared to just about any other date. No way this coin is only a 50 with an 'O' mint mark, IMO. In my experience, I'd say '84-S is THE most chronically undergraded date in the series.
And all that does is exacerbate the 'condition rarity' status and skew the pop reports.
<< <i>
<< <i>No AU50 has full breast feathers like that. There's some reason beyond just the deep cuts on the cheek as to why this piece graded AU50. >>
GoldenEyeNumismatics, I'm posting 800x800 sized pics and am trying to ugly this Morgan down with just some quick free hand shots... Yes NO AU50 looks like this, yet there is no mysterious problem as to why it was down graded. >>
It just seems hard to believe that 2 graders and a finalizer could be off by that much. I'd send that to HRH for review and comment.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>Okay, that 58's much "splashier" than your undergraded 50, but still, if you're coin isn't a 53 or 55, then what is? >>
Well PCGS gave this one a 55 so they are really horribly inconsistent or there is something about Broadstruck's coin that everyone is missing.
<< <i>The 1884-S is the most unjustly penalized date of the Morgan series by graders. They all know they do it too. It is the only date I would also recommend a slider as the best bet to a set collector. A patiently selected AU58 will beat the pants off of most UNCs in eye appeal. >>
Would it be fair to assume that a really nice 58 would have been a superb unc?
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1884-S is the most unjustly penalized date of the Morgan series by graders. They all know they do it too. It is the only date I would also recommend a slider as the best bet to a set collector. A patiently selected AU58 will beat the pants off of most UNCs in eye appeal. >>
Would it be fair to assume that a really nice 58 would have been a superb unc? >>
Yes, and isn't that a funny thing? Most of the MS63-MS64 of that date got light circulation, while the maintained UNCs were the basal ones. In reality, 84-S was long accepted as a rare date. So they were held by collectors. Collectors used to lightly clean their coins as an accepted practice. Some of that is dismissed (cabinet friction) but a lot are now AU53-AU58 sliders by our standards.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>I'd buy that coin, and any others like it, for AU50 money. PM me if you have a hundred or so to sell
You'll have to settle for AU50's like this