Yet another example of how images can make a coin look so different...

[MarkFeld]

Below are two sets of images of a Proof 1880 Morgan Dollar I handled recently. The first set was shot head-on, and made the coin appear to be darker than it really is, especially about the peripheries. The second set was shot with the coin at a slight angle, in order to show the mirror surfaces (and to some extent, the color) better. Please feel free to guess the grade that PCGS assigned to it.

 

 

[Coindude]

I'm gonna say 63 cameo on the first pic, if I were to only look at the second, I might go 65 cam + to dcam. Some excellent contrast there that the first pic just doesn't show. Although the top pic shows substantial hairlines.

[kryptonitecomics]

PR66? There are what look like hairlines all over that coin but I will assume they are either die polish lines or they are on the holder

[Old Pueblo]

Stunning! no matter the grade but my ?

PR66+Dcam

 

Thanks for the post

[prudden]

My goal is to get at least one Proof Cameo Morgan. I 'll say Proof 66CAM.

[physics-fan3.14]

I'll say 64DCAM because of the hairlines, but I wouldn't be surprised at 65DCAM. Looks like a very nice coin.

[bsshog40]

I like the first images better as they show the details much better if trying to grade. The second shots show the nice toning that this Morgan has but hides the die polish lines which may anger someone who might think the coin is cleaner than it actually is. I'm gonna say a small drop in grade for the excessive polish lines and guess PR64DCAM. Nice morgan for sure!!

[Schatzy]

I'll say PR-65 Cameo!!

[michael]

at least proof 64+

 

possibly 65 if in hand little to no hairlines

[gmarguli]

Please feel free to guess the grade that PCGS assigned to it.

 

I'm going to guess PF WhyWouldYouEvenAskThisKnowingFullWellThatGradingProofsFromPicturesIsImpossible CAMEO.

 

How close am I?

[James_OldeTowne]

My guess is PF-63 CAM. 19th century proof Morgan dollars are fairly reliable for cameo contrast.

[L1ncolnF4n]

64cam

[gpnyc]

Not a big fan of this coin from either set of images. The hairlines and uneven toning kill it for me. If it got anything higher that 63CAM I would be puzzled, but not shocked.

[MarkFeld]

The coin was graded Proof 63 by PCGS. There are a lot of hairlines that don't show up, even in the first set of images. However, it looks like an obvious cameo (but was not designated as such) and is quite flashy, with deep mirrors, which also don't show up well in the images.

[RareSov]

66 CAMEO

[kryptonitecomics]

The coin was graded Proof 63 by PCGS. There are a lot of hairlines that don't show up, even in the first set of images. However, it looks like an obvious cameo (but was not designated as such) and is quite flashy, with deep mirrors, which also don't show up well in the images.

 

 

I think we all saw the lines but some of us figured the lines were on the slab and some assumed they were on the coin and their grades were much more accurate. As for me your reputation for exceptional coins did me in as I didn't think you would stoop to handling anything in less than coins in PR65 condition

[Coindude]

As for me your reputation for exceptional coins did me in as I didn't think you would stoop to handling anything in less than coins in PR65 condition

You know Marks rep was really leading me towards a higher grade as well, but I decided to grade what I could see.

[Old Pueblo]

The coin was graded Proof 63 by PCGS. There are a lot of hairlines that don't show up, even in the first set of images. However, it looks like an obvious cameo (but was not designated as such) and is quite flashy, with deep mirrors, which also don't show up well in the images.

 

 

I think we all saw the lines but some of us figured the lines were on the slab and some assumed they were on the coin and their grades were much more accurate. As for me your reputation for exceptional coins did me in as I didn't think you would stoop to handling anything in less than coins in PR65 condition

 

Ditto for me

[jesbroken]

PF66dcam

[michael]

based on seeing many of marks previous for sale proof coins in hand and also the images this coin is a strong cameo and even though graded proof 63 i bet in hand sight seen the coin has way above average eye appeal for a proof 63 and i bet it looks way WAY BETTER in hand sight seen

 

 

i bet i have seen worse in proof 64 holders

[CarlWohlforth]

Well it is to late for me to express my opinion in a believable way. Mark already posted the grade! My guess was 63 Cameo made before I got to his reveal post.

 

The hairlines did look on the coin. Mark as a super reputation in my book but he is not above selling coins grade PR 63 so that did not factor in my guess.

 

I really dislike photos along the lines of the 2nd set. I've seen so many that way I know they hide the hairlines so will not assume I am anywhere near close on guessing the grade of proofs photographed like that. With the glare and over exposure they are not flattering to the coins in my opinion. The first set of photos were not all that flattering either, but did seem more reliable.

 

I have a suspicion PCGS doesn't like to give the cameo designation to coins with toning.

 

To me the first set of photos suggest a really neat coin that I would like much better once in hand.

[leeg]

I have a suspicion PCGS doesn't like to give the cameo designation to coins with toning.

(thumbs u

[MarkFeld]

I have a suspicion PCGS doesn't like to give the cameo designation to coins with toning.

(thumbs u

I don't think they are especially tough on awarding the designation to toned coins, unless they are really dark. And in that case, I can understand it.

[MikeKing]

great post!