I don't agree with the grading

[benjmurts]

I see coins like this grade higher because of the background of the coin and cleanliness, but the breast feather lack detail

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1885-MORGAN-DOLLAR-PCGS-MS64-WHITE-/200752115293?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2ebdc22e5d

 

I'm probably wrong but does anyone agree??

[coinman_23885]

I think it's undergraded personally by 1 point, notwithstanding the chatter on the reverse.

[mkman123]

I actually like the look of that coin, looks like some 65s that I have seen

[bochiman]

Strike comes into play a lot of times....so some years are known for certain areas being weak. I don't know if the 1885 and the breast feathers are one of those, but it may be.

[jgrinz]

I think the field chatter is a lot worse than pictured straight on. If angled in hand you will probably see depth of chatter is deeper and more present than shown.

Especially the one right below the chin on the obverse and below states on the reverse. 65's have very few field issues

 

I agree with the grade.

[James_OldeTowne]

Unlike that miserable MS-67 RD Lincoln cent you brought up elsewhere (which was overgraded by 2 points), this Morgan dollar looks nice for the grade. Going only by images, it appears to be a slightly PQ MS-64, so I think PCGS got the grade perfect.

 

1885 is a date that sees some variability of sharpness. Occasionally, you'll find one that is insanely sharp, but the subject coin is about average if not slightly soft, yet at this grade level, there is no impact on grade.

 

PCGS gets the grade right MOST of the time, and they are pretty consistent on Morgans, as is NGC.

[BillJones]

I think that it is "dead on" for the MS-64 grade. I'd never call it an MS-65 because it has too many tiny marks to qualify for that.

[RWB]

That's why it's an "opinion."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That's why it's an "opinion."

 

Can't we find a way to refrain from allowing Logic to interfere with our comments? It reduces the enjoyment level.

 

Respectfully, of course.

John Curlis

[JStull]

The only issue I have with this coin is the mark on Liberty's cheek.

 

Other than that, it has great eye appeal, and might be a point undergraded, but still nice looking for the grade given.

 

A bit overpriced, IMO, I think my offer would be $75-$80.

[messydesk]

Looks like a textbook 64 to me, but the picture is rather fuzzy.

[grip]

I think the field chatter is a lot worse than pictured straight on. If angled in hand you will probably see depth of chatter is deeper and more present than shown.

Especially the one right below the chin on the obverse and below states on the reverse. 65's have very few field issues

 

I agree with the grade.

 

I agree with that anology.

[coinman1794]

I have a feeling there is a lot more detail on the breast feathers than is visible in the blurry images. It looks like a choice MS64 coin, but not a 65.

[FishyOne]

Looks like a nice 64 to me. Sure, many low end 65s are similar but that's what a solid 64 should like. JMHO.

[lcoopie]

have you seen the coin?

[Walkerfan]

I could see that as a low end 65 but it is still a very solid 64. It definitely deserves at least a PLUS, though.

[michiganboy]

I think at least its solid for the grade, could go 65 on a good day IMHO.

[mrstock]

I dont see the breast feathers as being all that weak. Looks 64 looks right to me.

[braddick]

Clearly an MS64. I like how there is no milk spotting, otherwise, pretty standard for the grade.