Does anyone else think these coins are undergraded?

[Deerefan8420]

I was going through my Morgan collection and taking some new pictures for my registry set. I sent these two coins in for grading earlier in the year. I didn't think much of it at the time but now that I've been looking at these coins more, I feel that they are both under graded by at least 1-2 points. They both came back at MS62.

 

The first coin is a 1900 Morgan. The coin is well struck and has very few and very minor marks. The fields are very clean and although the pictures don't show it, the coin does have strong luster, plus some nice rim toning on the Obverse and the Reverse.

 

The next coin is a 1900-O Morgan. This coin falls right in with the description of the 1900 Morgan. In fact, the field and the devices are much more reflective and show a great amount of luster. For a New Orleans Mint issue, this coin also has a very nice strike. The only thing I think would hold this coin back from a MS64 are the above "In God We Trust" on the Reverse.

[coinman_23885]

I think part of the confusion may result from the inconsistency in grading in the lower mint state grades used by the third party grading services. I have seen worse coins in MS63 slabs on the first coin, but I believe that is properly graded at MS62 and is a decent specimen at this grade level. It would be low end for a 63 in my opinion.

 

The second image, however, I am not sure what is going on there. It certainly looks better than MS62, and I would argue for at least MS63+ if not a full 64 (it wouldn't look out of place in a 64 slab in my opinion based on what I have seen 64 these days). The reverse is holding the coin back, but still a 62 is too low in my opinion. I am wondering if the coin was netgraded for some reason.

 

 

[bsshog40]

The first looks like it may go 63 but no higher in my opinion. The second one seems to be fairly clean but I'm no wondering if the worn rims didn't keep this coin from going any higher. I agree with Kenny on maybe a net grade due to the wear on the rims.

[Coinbuf]

Well it could be just the lighting but the first seems to show a color change on the rev high points and also an a couple of spots on the obv which could indicate wear. Just baised on these pics if it were a guess the grade thread I'd say AU58. The second looks good but the cheek is too flat and there are enough contact marks to limit the grade to 63/64 imo.

 

Edited to add: I am not a big submitter of coins but baised on my one submission this yr and comments from others it seems that NGC is in a tight phase right now.

[Walkerfan]

Coins look at least 63. Maybe the luster is holding them back? I don't know---they look solid to me and better than 62.

[Whiteknight-migration]

Coins both look like sliders

They're clean not too many hits hence why they got graded lower MS.

Most sliders are 61-62, occasionally a 63

 

[yonico]

First coin looks 63 to me, second coin almost 64.

If pics are accurate, they really do look undergraded.

Btw I really like the die cracks on the 1900-O

[coinman1794]

These coins both seem to have a dull appearance, and this would account for an MS62 grade if they look that way in-hand.

[wdrob]

 

NGC is in a tight phase right now.

 

No more really needs to be said.

[FishyOne]

These coins both seem to have a dull appearance, and this would account for an MS62 grade if they look that way in-hand.

 

I agree and thought they would need to be very dull/over-dipped to grade that low (62). The OP said they have good luster though?

[BillJones]

The first coin has a dull, washed out appearance which precludes the assignment of a Choice Mint State (MS-63) grade. The luster is very subdued, and may have been impaired by dipping years ago.

 

The second one is brighter and might be undergraded. My concern is that it might have a minor rub on the highest surfaces such as the cap.

 

I can see where you might think that these pieces should be graded higher because they don't have any serious bag marks, but the first coin is dull, which explains the grade, and the second one might have some aspects of a "slider" to its overall state of preservation.

[kryptonitecomics]

NGC is crazy tight right now...I am getting MS63 coins back as MS61's and MS62's so you are not alone. I have never had a problem with their grading of Morgans and Peace dollars but right now I can't afford to submit to them as it's wasting money.

 

Here is an MS61 according to NGC now...

 

 

 

 

 

and here are MS62's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crypto79-migration]

The OP's coins look dipped out a tad and overall unremarkable, I think 62 is fine maybe lucky are they kind of look like dipped sliders.

 

KC coins have much better luster and skin but appear much chattier, great example of the total coin grading concept. The OP coins are smooth but dull and unattractive and held back while KC coins have the look of a higher grade, technically the contact marks hold them back although the 22d does look a grade and a half low. The rest one can at least see what NGC was thinking.

[orifdoc]

Why does nobody ever comment on hairlines? To me, photos are great for showing hits, strike, and color. Anyone who learns how to grade big coins like these from looking at photos is likely to over-emphasize bagmarks and under-emphasize surfaces condition and luster. Eye appeal, luster, and hairlines can sometimes be seen in a photo, but it really depends on the quality of the photo and the intent of the photographer. Rotating a coin around in a dark room with a single light source in-hand can be VERY revealing.

 

I'm not saying the OP's coins aren't undergraded. Without seeing them in-hand there is no way to know. Based on the visible number of hits alone, these coins could qualify for higher grades, but there is likely more to the story.

 

Graders do make mistakes, but remember more than one very, very experienced grader looked at these and they arrived at a consensus.

[kryptonitecomics]

By the way I showed mine to a grader who will remain nameless and he also thought the coins I posted were undergraded...all except another Peace dollar I didn't post which he felt was an MS62.

[coinman_23885]

By the way I showed mine to a grader who will remain nameless and he also thought the coins I posted were undergraded...all except another Peace dollar I didn't post which he felt was an MS62.

 

Mark thought the 85-O was under graded too? The 1885-O is the only coin that you posted that I didn't feel was under graded.

 

P.S. I would have said:

63

62

63

64

[FishyOne]

By the way I showed mine to a grader who will remain nameless and he also thought the coins I posted were undergraded...all except another Peace dollar I didn't post which he felt was an MS62.

 

If you sent them to CAC do you think they would "gold"?

[thecoinczar]

Deerefan8420; I am in total agreement with Coinman's opinions and observances. The first Morgan does have a lot of chatter here and there in both the devices and the fields, but I have seen worse coins in 63 holders. On the second coin I concur that it is very clean and free from scuffs & scratches on the obverse. It should have went into a 63 or 64 holder in my opinion. The chatter above the motto on the reverse shouldn't have pulled it down at all. After all, the reverse doesn't affect the grade on Morgan coins, or at least that's what the grading manuals claim. I hope that this helps. Good luck.

[thecoinczar]

Hello Kryptonitecomics; The grading companies totally me off to the max! Their grading rules are not consistent and never have been. That is why I haven't had any of my raw coins graded since I began collecting coins. The grades are decided upon by humans and it isn't a science, but a matter of opinion when grading a coin. I guess we will have to tolerate them until a more precise method of coin grading is developed, but I will not submit any of my coins until I see consistency and competence!

[Coinbuf]

By the way I showed mine to a grader who will remain nameless and he also thought the coins I posted were undergraded...all except another Peace dollar I didn't post which he felt was an MS62.

 

If you sent them to CAC do you think they would "gold"?

 

Not answering for Shane, but in my experiences with submiting to CAC only the 22-D would be a strong gold bean candidate baised on these pics.

[James_OldeTowne]

These coins both seem to have a dull appearance, and this would account for an MS62 grade if they look that way in-hand.

(thumbs u

 

These appear to be a classic case of not enough luster to achieve a higher grade.

[Deerefan8420]

Finally figured out how to capture good luster! All I needed to do was change my lighting a bit. It's funny how it's just the simple things that make the biggest differences.

 

Thought I would upload new pictures to see if anyone had a different opinion with better photos. Pictures are not enhanced in any way and no post-production processing was done except for cropping.

 

1900

 

1900-O

[orifdoc]

Well, these photos are brighter, and the coins are certainly reflective. Still, I'm not really seeing strong luster bands.

 

If you really think they're undergraded, send them in again. For the simple cost of the grading fees you'll have another opinion. If you're not looking at selling soon, there really isn't a point though. The coins won't be different even if the label does change.

[coinman1794]

Both of these coin look like dipped sliders.

 

Well, they are both dipped for sure, and they seem to have that chalky dip-residue appearance that suggests they are in need of conservation. I also think I see enough whispy lines to say they were lightly circulated. That would explain their low MS grades.