Bag marks and grades

[CommanderB]

Hello all... yes, I am a total newbie.

 

So I have this morgan, 1879-S, that has, IMHO, significant "bag marks" on the reverse... and it is slabbed by one of those "other" grading companies. BUT I hope to submit it for a crossover. ...Would NGC details grade this coin due to these marks?

 

...having difficulty posting image, if it does not show up, I will attempt again. Thx.

[cpm9ball]

Welcome to the neighborhood!

 

First of all, you don't have to be afraid of mentioning the name of another TPGS around here. We may be crazy at times, but we're not fanatics.

 

From your photo, it looks like it's in an NTC (Numistrust) slab. NTC usually overgrades coins by one or two points, and you should keep that in mind when considering one for purchase. That doesn't mean that you can't find some fairly nice coins in their slabs as long as you pay an appropriate price.

 

You didn't show us a photo of the obverse so there is no way anyone can give you an estimate of the grade, but I wonder why you would want to go to the expense of having it crossed to NGC when it is not a very expensive coin anyway. The grading fees and shipping & insurance would end up being at least half of what the coin is worth.

 

To answer your last question, no, NGC would not details-grade a coin for bag marks. The bag marks can affect the grade, but that's it. That doesn't mean that it can't be details-graded if it is determined that the bag marks were actually caused by something else and it is severe enough to warrant it. That is one of the problems you will find with coins that are slabbed by some of the "third-world" grading services. Sometimes they are problem coins, and that is why they are in those slabs.

 

Chris

[Mark T]

More information is needed:

 

Current grade of the coin.

What company certified it.

A better and much larger picture is needed – yours is to small.

You need to post a picture of both the Obverse and Reverse

 

 

 

 

[johnny9434]

welcome to the boards commander b enjoy

[L1ncolnF4n]

Welcome!

 

What worries me in that micro image is the coloring of the "marks". They look almost red. The image appears to have a nice frost and looks PL, but since it's in a TWH, I'm guessing it may be cleaned or otherwise altered. Without bigger and more images it's impossible to give a yay or nay to cross.

[jgrinz]

My Guesses

 

Current grade of the coin - MS66PL

What company certified it - NTC

A better and much larger picture is needed - Agreed

You need to post a picture of both the Obverse and Reverse - Agreed

 

Thanks for the template Mark T

 

Welcome to the boards

 

[CommanderB]

Sorry about the lack of pics - was caught up in just getting the first one posted. That was from the seller. Yep, NTC it is.

 

I did my best taking new ones... but they came out way to big. Any tips?

 

This is also from the seller - and it obviously gives away what it was graded:

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

If you want, you can crop it just to show the coin. You can do the same with the insert if you want, but it isn't necessary.

 

 

If you want to show the obverse/reverse side-by-side (just the coin), size them to about 400x400.

 

If you want to show them above and below for a larger image of each, you can size them to about 800x800.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

It's hard to tell from the seller's images if it is DMPL or not, but it does look like it could be PL. Some of the grading services have different standards for determining the reflectivity for DMPL. NTC probably uses a minimal standard, 4" or less but I can't say for sure, and this would not meet the NGC standard. I can't recall the NGC standard off the top of my head, so someone else can chime in with that info.

 

I can't say about the grade either, but those marks on the reverse have me concerned. My eyes aren't that good any more so I would have to see a larger shot of both sides.

 

Chris

[prudden]

It's hard to tell from the seller's images if it is DMPL or not, but it does look like it could be PL. Some of the grading services have different standards for determining the reflectivity for DMPL. NTC probably uses a minimal standard, 4" or less but I can't say for sure, and this would not meet the NGC standard. I can't recall the NGC standard off the top of my head, so someone else can chime in with that info.

 

I can't say about the grade either, but those marks on the reverse have me concerned. My eyes aren't that good any more so I would have to see a larger shot of both sides.

 

Chris

 

I've sent half a dozen DMPL's to NGC for crossover.Haven't sent an NTC graded coin yet,though.Their standard for DPL is very tough.Three came back altered surfaces and one came back improperly cleaned. It's certainly not the standard ANA came up with years ago. This 79s looks good in the sellers pics,but I'm very wary of NTC and other DMPL's, because there are so many ways they can be fooled with,which includes altered surfaces,cleaning,whizzing and just not making the grade. If the 79s actually did crossover at that grade or one less,it would probably be worth the cost. Depends on you.

[cpm9ball]

It's hard to tell from the seller's images if it is DMPL or not, but it does look like it could be PL. Some of the grading services have different standards for determining the reflectivity for DMPL. NTC probably uses a minimal standard, 4" or less but I can't say for sure, and this would not meet the NGC standard. I can't recall the NGC standard off the top of my head, so someone else can chime in with that info.

 

I can't say about the grade either, but those marks on the reverse have me concerned. My eyes aren't that good any more so I would have to see a larger shot of both sides.

 

Chris

 

I've sent half a dozen DMPL's to NGC for crossover.Haven't sent an NTC graded coin yet,though.Their standard for DPL is very tough.Three came back altered surfaces and one came back improperly cleaned. It's certainly not the standard ANA came up with years ago. This 79s looks good in the sellers pics,but I'm very wary of NTC and other DMPL's, because there are so many ways they can be fooled with,which includes altered surfaces,cleaning,whizzing and just not making the grade. If the 79s actually did crossover at that grade or one less,it would probably be worth the cost. Depends on you.

 

A couple years ago, I submitted an 1898-O that was cracked out of an ANACS MS63DMPL slab (I felt it would grade 64DPL), and it came back "Altered Surfaces". I took it to FUN 2009 and asked David Lange to look at it. He said that it appeared to have some sort of haze on the surfaces. He added that "Altered Surfaces" is sort of a catch-all for things that don't look right. He added that I might want to consider submitting it to NCS for conservation. At the NGC Luncheon at FUN last month, all of the attendees received a certificate for one free conservation and grading by NGC. That is where the coin is now. We'll see!

 

Chris

[CommanderB]

Thanks all for feedback - I will work on posting the images i took tomorrow (I work nights so on my way out at the moment...).

 

It is a pretty good looking coin, tho I am always concerned about some sort of alteration that I can't detect. Some were wondering why vs the cost would I do a crossover... 3 reasons.

> One is, if it crosses close to this grade - even in just PL - it's definately worth the money.

> Second, if it is a problem coin, and I just sell it on E*Bay I am just continueing the problem of kinda misrepresented coins in that arena, and I really don't want to purposefully be contributing to that.

> ...and finally, I want the coins I have to be as legit as possible - so I would rather have it regraded, even if it means a lower grade, because I know it is real instead of "Here's a great coin, but it's graded by them so probably not quite this good."

[RareSov]

"Altered Surfaces" is sort of a catch-all for things that don't look right.

 

Damn straight. I think I'll be submitting a coin to NCS for someone soon that PCGS bagged.