Morgan Opinions Please 79s - NEW HI RES PICs at bottom of page 1

[SWNGC]

Thanks

[SWNGC]

New approach

[Coindude]

My first impression was 63 from the top pictures. Had you only shown the bottom pictures I probably would have said 64. I'll stick with 63.

[James_OldeTowne]

MS-64+.

[SWNGC]

There's a reason this one is so hard to get the lighting right on... and you can play where's waldo with any kind of contact mark...

[mtnstyne]

MS64

[SWNGC]

New Camera - Better Pics, that small mark on the lower cheek is the only real mark of any kind...

[zboyle04]

looks MS65-66 to me

[cpm9ball]

New Camera - Better Pics, that small mark on the lower cheek is the only real mark of any kind...

 

That "small" mark will probably keep it from anything higher than MS64.

 

Chris

[rrantique]

New Camera - Better Pics, that small mark on the lower cheek is the only real mark of any kind...

 

That "small" mark will probably keep it from anything higher than MS64.

 

Chris

 

Across the ear lobe and above the ear hair also MS 64

[Walkerfan]

Very CLEAN MS 65 but I question those surfaces. Vey shiny but no real cartwheel.

[e1cnr]

66 PL

[SWNGC]

Wow Chris/others - You guys are a tough crowd...

 

So this one is what a 63 - look at the "chatter" on the face

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3325090-001

 

And this one has a big "gouge" so I guess 64?

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=1979853-059

 

and this one had four marks that size on the face, must be a 62?

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3316133-002

[coinman_23885]

Wow Chris/others - You guys are a tough crowd...

 

So this one is what a 63 - look at the "chatter" on the face

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3325090-001

 

And this one has a big "gouge" so I guess 64?

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=1979853-059

 

and this one had four marks that size on the face, must be a 62?

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3316133-002

 

1 - Your coin isn't MS68 and doesn't look anywhere as nice as those referenced in your post. I'm not stating that you are implying this, but if you are, you are wrong.

 

2- NGC slab images are (sorry to our host) basically worthless and do not represent the true image of the coin. Having seen images and received a coin with a different appearance in hand, I can vouch for this (although it was pleasant in my case).

 

3 - You have consistently posted photos which were sub par. As such, collectors are going to err on the side of caution. Your coin may be every bit of the grade that you wanted to hear, but 9/10 times that isn't true here, especially with images like the ones posted.

 

4 - The first images seem to show more chatter than the later photos from different angles. Based on the very first image, the grades, while conservative, weren't as outlandish as you represent them to be. The coin appears to be higher from the second set of images, but then again, there is the issue of your images. Lighting and the angle of image can hide grade limiting contact marks and other issues.

 

5 - There are grading characteristics other than surfaces (i.e. number of contact marks). This includes luster, strike, and eye appeal. Your photos don't show your coin's luster well (or what I can gather from the myriad of disjointed photos).

 

6- You don't need to be sarcastic. You asked for an opinion, and that is what you received. If you don't want to hear then opinion, then why waste your time and ask?

[SWNGC]

Dude - That's a lot of effort in a response. While I thank you for the work you've put forth, your impressions are waaay off base. Chris is well aware that my comment was made in jest and that the point is that a single mark on the cheek with a few in the hair, is far from an exclusionary factor on its own from a 65 or higher grade, as is illustrated by the examples provided of great coins with imperfections (hence the lack of an ms70 grade). Incidentally, since I agree that the NGC images are not the best, and since I am aware that you are a registered user at HA based on your early posts when you first arrived here last year, here are links to two of the same coins where you may reference a little "better" images.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1154&lotNo=5638

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1143&lotNo=5245

 

Specifically, with the PL one, and looking at the expanded/Large image, note that the lighting appears diffused or "muted" to eliminate glare. Also note that there is a distinct break/contact mark just below PL, that the left obv field appears to have imperfections as a result of the lighting angle, and that there are several marks with obvious metal displacement on the face, as well as what could be interpreted as abrasion to the face just right of the nose, and that the strike as measured strictly from the area just above the ear is actually not as full as you would like to see. However, the fact that the cap/leaves/hair ore so devoid of marks is a huge factor for this coin. When looking at the Rev, there is significant contact/displacement of metal in the fields immediately right of the eagle.

 

Yet there she be, in a recent MS67 PL NGC holder. So... eye appeal, I'd bet - Looks to have good frost. Luster, Sure - it's PL, but you won't catch that on a photo taken from directly above. Strike, it's close to Full. Surface Preservation, well that's what keeps it from a 68... More importantly, and given the relative subjectivity of the eye appeal and luster factors, I'd almost wager this coin was graded on a Sunny Thursday in Mid June, Statistically the happiest time(s) for most working people, which could have had more to do with the grade that anything else... & yes, the bad news is, that means it's all downhill from here folks:)

 

My REAL Point is, as we all sit at 30" monitors with coin images blown up to a size bigger than our own head, damn near every coin can begin to look like a subpar specimen...

 

 

[noow]

Now that was PONAGE.

coinman, not in much of a good mood?