• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guess the grade-NGC mistake?

Started by prudden,

35 posts in this topic

prudden

prudden

Posted
Posted

I found this NGC graded while poking around the web. I'm not buying I just like to know what you all think before I post the grade NGC assigned to it.

63443.jpg.4763248b9742fc291e49d7cb5e8d9806.jpg

63444.jpg.7bb22563205c337496b1d923cab5cf31.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coindude

Coindude

Posted
Posted

I think 63, maybe even BB because they think it may have been cleaned as evidenced by the spots on the reverse where the dip or water wasn't dried correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgrinz

jgrinz

Posted
Posted

Bringing it down to a normaller size ( Is that even a word :) ) - It may have graded MS65 - I think the spotting will degrade the grade to a 64

 

63450.jpg.8363da8172e830dbd4c91fd1b3737651.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Bringing it down to a more normal size ( Is that even a word :) ) - It may have graded MS65 - I think the spotting will degrade the grade to a 64

 

 

Grammatical correction! Your welcome!

 

Chris

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prudden

prudden

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So, one person hit it. I really can't believe it myself.I've got better that graded 2-3 points less. Here is the slab.I would grade 63 at best. With the spots on the reverse? Ugh!! I gotta say this is about the worst 65(by NGC or PCGS) I've come across. The serial number dates is several+ years back.

63454.jpg.a06ca49f68474bd3e2e5e8f8dd2c0259.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
On any good day,

I would give it a 63.

But alas, I'm sad to say,

That I am not the TPG.

 

Chris

 

2nd verse:

 

I can't for the life of me,

See how they arrive

At giving something so ugly

An MS65.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prudden

prudden

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On any good day,

I would give it a 63.

But alas, I'm sad to say,

That I am not the TPG.

 

Chris

 

2nd verse:

 

I can't for the life of me,

See how they arrive

At giving something so ugly

An MS65.

 

Chris

 

Nice verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lehigh96

lehigh96

Posted
Posted
So, one person hit it. I really can't believe it myself.I've got better that graded 2-3 points less. Here is the slab.I would grade 63 at best. With the spots on the reverse? Ugh!! I gotta say this is about the worst 65(by NGC or PCGS) I've come across. The serial number dates is several+ years back.

 

That coin actually makes me feel good. I thought NGC was generous with my 1921-S Morgan, but that one puts mine to shame from an overgraded point of view. lol

 

MorganDollar1921-SNGCMS65GreatFa-4.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prudden

prudden

Posted
  • Author
Posted
So, one person hit it. I really can't believe it myself.I've got better that graded 2-3 points less. Here is the slab.I would grade 63 at best. With the spots on the reverse? Ugh!! I gotta say this is about the worst 65(by NGC or PCGS) I've come across. The serial number dates is several+ years back.

 

That coin actually makes me feel good. I thought NGC was generous with my 1921-S Morgan, but that one puts mine to shame from an overgraded point of view. lol

 

Yes.Yours is definitely in better shape. Looks like a nice 65 to me,but I'm no expert,far from it and it's harder to tell from a single photo... Thanks for posting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgrinz

jgrinz

Posted
Posted
So, one person hit it. I really can't believe it myself.I've got better that graded 2-3 points less. Here is the slab.I would grade 63 at best. With the spots on the reverse? Ugh!! I gotta say this is about the worst 65(by NGC or PCGS) I've come across. The serial number dates is several+ years back.

 

:) - I actually see little wrong with it cept a few minor 'visual' distractions at the chin and forehead / luster looks nice /cartwheel is nice ... I think the spotting happened after slabbing seeing the actual grade. If you own it I would bring it to NGC attention.

 

Oversize pictures tend to over emphasize distractions to the overall picture of the coin. Thats why I shrink them and get a full view of the whole coin ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark T

Mark T

Posted
Posted

There was a period of time when NGC was putting out some very liberal grades.

Lehigh your 1921 is a solid MS 65 even with those marks below the U.

Here is a nice grading link to check out :

 

 

http://www.coingrading.com/grdproc1.html

 

It uses Morgan’s as an example and there is a chapter that talks about bags marks and the places that will most likely lower the grade.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted

:) - I actually see little wrong with it cept a few minor 'visual' distractions at the chin and forehead / luster looks nice /cartwheel is nice ... I think the spotting happened after slabbing seeing the actual grade. If you own it I would bring it to NGC attention.

 

Oversize pictures tend to over emphasize distractions to the overall picture of the coin. Thats why I shrink them and get a full view of the whole coin ...

 

Yeah, agreed, the over sized images make it appear like Miss Liberty ran head long into a rotating weed whacker.

 

I have to admit, this Morgan as at best, the very edge of being a MS-65, I would not even consider it a “lock 64!”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zrlevin

zrlevin

Posted
Posted
Bringing it down to a more normal size ( Is that even a word :) ) - It may have graded MS65 - I think the spotting will degrade the grade to a 64

 

 

Grammatical correction! You're welcome!

 

Chris

 

 

Grammatical Correction! You're welcome! :makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jackson64

jackson64

Posted
Posted

Another consideration--when the coin was in NGC's hands ( a few years ago as we note by the serial #)...the reverse may have been pristine. Some amateur dipper did not rinse well enough to prevent the spots and even the reverse brown most likely is caused by dip residue also, which developed over time..........

 

 

In fairness to NGC, this coin may have looked quite a bit different when it was submitted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgrinz

jgrinz

Posted
Posted
With that cheek..........62 max.

 

JJ

 

I think you are seeing more than is there because of the LARGE picture. I believe you are seeing off color rub marks on the cheek minor abrasions - I do not see any distracting scratches or abrasions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RI AL

RI AL

Posted
Posted

I have to go with MS 63 as well. A bit "baggy" on the obverse but she looks original and frosty to me with some beige reverse toning.

 

ANA book for MS 63: "A mint state coin with attractive mint luster but noticeable detracting contact marks or minor blemishes".

 

RI AL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAULEMALL

MAULEMALL

Posted
Posted
I have to go with MS 63 as well. A bit "baggy" on the obverse but she looks original and frosty to me with some beige reverse toning.

 

ANA book for MS 63: "A mint state coin with attractive mint luster but noticeable detracting contact marks or minor blemishes".

 

RI AL

60
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDSD38-migration

TDSD38-migration

Posted
Posted

I've looked at some positively hideous Trade Dollars even above MS 63. I've heard the term 'technical grade' used. Maybe one of the senior numismatists could enlighten us on that subject as it seems relevant here...I guess we all have our own definition of eye appeal. But there seems to be a broad consensus amoung senior numismatists regarding each coin variety.

 

Is that brown goop PVC residue? Hard to say on a digital image. Scott Travers mentioned de natured alcohol as an inert non abrasive way to remove oils from previous finger prints and maybe even PVC goop so that it doesn't get encapsulated in there and cause the coin to deteriorate in the holder. But it isn't going to change the coin luster, toning etc, according to conservationists and Travers. Who knows, maybe Mr. Travers reads this forum and can explain that.

 

As far as the obverse, I have some very similar ungraded 1881_S morgans, like a whole roll that look so similar to this coin: almost DCAM, but lots of scuff marks on key features of the devices. I've always considered them MS 61-2, but maybe semi prooflike and struck off highly polished dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prudden

prudden

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This coin is in a newer Anacs 65 holder. Personally, I just can't see any comparison how that coin could be a 65.

 

 

Now that's more like it. The more I look at that 21 the happier I am I didn't buy. I see even more dings and spots every time I look at it. I checked back on it and no one fell for the $169.00 "Buy it now" price.

Here's one that's a lot better.NGC MS65.Lots of die cracks!!But look at the rim at

11 O'clock on the reverse. What is that?

64196.jpg.ff2af3d20d373c7ceb0b040c847feac1.jpg

64197.jpg.ff2ed9c2269f01f7d4ccd5ead75c27b3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing