1887 proof morgan, will the grade hold up?

[JOBESSI]

Here is an 1887 proof morgan i saw listed & I'm thinking of bidding on it. do you think the grade with hold up in an NGC slab? What grade would you place on it?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Absolutely impossible to tell from those pictures.

[Coindude]

I see contrast... but is it enough to hold the Cameo designation? Not sure. Will it hold a 65? Seriously doubt it but I can't tell from those photos. At least it is a proof.

[BillJones]

Going by the reverse I have my doubts that it will make Cameo. The contrast does not look to be that great. While it it true that it hard to tell enough from the pictures to predict whether or not it will cross in the same grade, I'll go out on a small limb, and say it won't. The piece appears to have been dipped, and it's been my experience that most dipped silver Proof coins don't make PR-65. they are usually limited to PR-64 or less.

 

Here's another way to look at this. The price difference on the Gray Sheet between PR-64 and 65 is $3,300 to $5,500. If the coin looked like it would cross, I don't think that the consigner would leave $2,200 on the table.

 

Finally compare it to this one, which is an NGC PR-64, with no cameo designation.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

As has been pointed out already, it is difficult to grade proof coins from even good photographs and the images provided aren't great or even close to it. I don't think that it has enough cameo so I don't think the designation will hold. With my experience, I doubt that the PCI gold holdered coin will keep its current grade in a PCGS or NGC holder.

[JOBESSI]

Based on these photos, how much would you pay for this coin? The current bid is at $2700

[MarkFeld]

I am amazed that anyone who is not a total newbie would think that people could provide meaningful grade guesses of the type asked, simply by viewing on line images. It is impossible. And you either already know or should know that.

[JOBESSI]

They were the pics on the auction for the coin. I was trying to see what the masses thought. It's that very reason why I haven't bid on it. Sorry for asking.

[coinman_23885]

They were the pics on the auction for the coin. I was trying to see what the masses thought. It's that very reason why I haven't bid on it. Sorry for asking.

 

I don't think he was trying to be fussy, but to help you instead. I would pass on this coin. Unless you know what you are doing and have a lot of experience, I would avoid buying raw coins or those certified by TPGs other than NGC or PCGS online. There may be good coins in those holders from time to time, but if you do have a lot of experience, the odds of you obtaining the coin at a fair price are stacked against you.

[JOBESSI]

I know he was trying to help. I haven't bid on anything. I was just seeking perspective. I hear he's been a round awhile, and I'm always open to suggestions.

[MarkFeld]

They were the pics on the auction for the coin. I was trying to see what the masses thought. It's that very reason why I haven't bid on it. Sorry for asking.

 

No need to be sorry for asking. But you need to understand that you asked a question which could not be answered, based on the images.

[BillJones]

He wanted advice, and we are trying to help. I think I can see enough on the reverse to say that getting a "cameo" designation on this piece is a long shot. Beyond that grading this piece to the last point is impossible from the photos.

[MarkFeld]

He wanted advice, and we are trying to help. I think I can see enough on the reverse to say that getting a "cameo" designation on this piece is a long shot. Beyond that grading this piece to the last point is impossible from the photos.

 

It looks cameo to me. But since there is no way to know the deserved numerical grade, the cameo question is moot.

[BillJones]

He wanted advice, and we are trying to help. I think I can see enough on the reverse to say that getting a "cameo" designation on this piece is a long shot. Beyond that grading this piece to the last point is impossible from the photos.

 

It looks cameo to me. But since there is no way to know the deserved numerical grade, the cameo question is moot.

 

Okay, how about the 1883 Proof dollar I posted? It has frosted devices on both sides and didn't get a cameo. Yet I have an 1869 Proof dollar that got a cameo which I can barely detect on the obverse with nothing that I can see on the reverse, but PCGS gave it one.

 

I guess if the "cameo" designation is handed out inconsistently on 19th century coinage, anything can happen, but I don't see enough on this piece to say that it will.

 

[MarkFeld]

He wanted advice, and we are trying to help. I think I can see enough on the reverse to say that getting a "cameo" designation on this piece is a long shot. Beyond that grading this piece to the last point is impossible from the photos.

 

It looks cameo to me. But since there is no way to know the deserved numerical grade, the cameo question is moot.

 

Okay, how about the 1883 Proof dollar I posted? It has frosted devices on both sides and didn't get a cameo. Yet I have an 1869 Proof dollar that got a cameo which I can barely detect on the obverse with nothing that I can see on the reverse, but PCGS gave it one.

 

I guess if the "cameo" designation is handed out inconsistently on 19th century coinage, anything can happen, but I don't see enough on this piece to say that it will.

 

 

Sorry, I was looking at the 1883 you posted, when I made my "it looks cameo to me" remark. Neither the 1887 Morgan, nor the Proof Seated Dollar look cameo to me. And yes, the cameo designation, like other designations, is applied inconsistently.

[J3_Dog]

I wil guess 64 DPL. Hard to tell with the photo. It needs more light shined on it though. Sorry... To clarify, I was talking about the Morgan

[coinman_23885]

I wil guess 64 DPL.

 

It looks to be a proof and not a proof-like specimen.

[MarkFeld]

I wil guess 64 DPL.

 

It looks to be a proof and not a proof-like specimen.

 

Agreed. I have never seen a business strike of that date with the strike/detail of that one.