NewP: 1883-CC Morgan

[DJCoinz]

One of my most recent purchases, finally got around to imaging it the other day. The luster is quite amazing on this one. Any and all comments are appreciated.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Very nice MS-65+. The reverse really looks like a 66.

[Just Bob]

The pics give it a semi prooflike look. Pretty Morgan. (thumbs u

[TomB]

In my experience this coin actually has quite a bit of color for a CC Morgan. It also appears to have considerable flash and is quite attractive.

[lehigh96]

Gorgeous--even if you are a Brewers fan.

[cpm9ball]

This is a good example of why I hate trying to grade from a photograph.

 

I'm am surprised to learn that it received a 65 "endorsed" by CAC. It looks like there are just too many marks on Liberty's face and neck and in, both. the obverse and reverse fields for a 65. As has been said before on these boards, the photography seems to magnify the detracting marks. I would have thought it was a 63/64.

 

Chris

[MAULEMALL]

An excellent example of a CC graded 65.

All TPG's have a seperate standard for CC Morgans and it seems that the Beanies do as well.

 

That being said, An excellent coin..

[rrantique]

Great looking CC. (thumbs u

[DJCoinz]

Chris...in hand the cheek looks quite a bit cleaner than the images show. My camera does tend to magnify any and all marks present.

 

Lehigh96....

 

Thanks for the comments everyone.

[realone]

We really have to give these classic coins a break. No grader sees these coins so blown up they we are viewing this Morgan. I agree with the grade and think it is very very appealing and would love to own the subject Morgan. The photograph can only be used for fun and not serious grading becasue as the op and others mentioned we are viewing it so unrealistically that we are seeing tiny and minor imperfections so vastly blown up it only exaggerates the state so unfairly to give the illusion that it is beat up and not worthy of a 65 and a65 with a green football attached to the front.

[PCcoins]

It does look to have a few contact marks for a 65, IMO. But I think its the pics. It obviously made the grade with two expert opinions. Very nice!

[prudden]

This is a good example of why I hate trying to grade from a photograph.

 

I'm am surprised to learn that it received a 65 "endorsed" by CAC. It looks like there are just too many marks on Liberty's face and neck and in, both. the obverse and reverse fields for a 65. As has been said before on these boards, the photography seems to magnify the detracting marks. I would have thought it was a 63/64.

 

Chris

 

Ain't that the truth!!I looked at this and thought 64? Not quite enough chatter to go 63. I look at some of my graded coin pics and wonder. Don't get me wrong,I like it,especially the hint of color.

[jgrinz]

I Love CC's but there are some coloring issues that kinda bother me on this coin. The points that bother me are pictured below ... The ear and the spot within the tone. The reverse looks typical of a 65 cc with a few marks.

 

BUT CAC says its good so it must be so

 

Chris - I think the picture is just too close because the slab picture it shows the cheek pretty nice so its just too close of a picture that shows marks 'minutae' on the cheek.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SkyMan]

That coin looks like it's got some serious POP!

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't know whether the sticker means "PQ", or "correctly" graded in this case, but the grade seems accurate to me. Looks to be a gorgeous coin, and the crescent of color adds to the appeal and original appearance!