I Thought These Two Were Excellent Upgrade Candidates...

[BillJones]

I'm having trouble matching up the coins for an objective opinion, but here is my general observation.

 

All of the coins that you pictured were maxed out at MS-66. There were no upgrade candidates there. Getting ANY Morgan Dollar into an MS-67 holder is very difficult. To be a candidate for an upgrade from MS-66 to anything higher, the coin has "to knock your socks off." It has to be an absolutely mesmerizingly beautiful Morgan Dollar with an absolutely clean cheek for Ms. Liberty. If it's got ONE MARK on her cheek that you can see with your naked eye, it's out.

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

Standards have gotten tougher especially in the prooflike/DPL grading arena. When I started researching those back in the 90s, I saw that certain dealers like Silvano DiGenova were making a market in them. Anthony Swiatek offered me a "gem" DPL but passed as it had an obvious defect to my amateur eyes. The thoroughly seasoned experts know what weight to give to every aspect in the grading process, and marketability may come down to eye appeal which DPLs have in spades, more eye appeal than most proof Morgans at a fraction of the cost. To what extent do highly intellectual factors of variety, pop. figures, limited availability, etc. have on salability vs. readily available coins with the superior eye appeal? Personally I would rather have rare classic type coins than perhaps overly emphatic glow in the dark "monster" coins.

 

Here was a DPL by the old standards that got downgraded to PL once the issue was dipped out: http://i.imgur.com/HgJWYCr.jpg Management has to deal with all the "guarantee" submissions probably accompanied by exhaustively documented letters from major dealers questioning overly generous grading, which then filters down to the graders who get their new marching orders. With the flood of all the US mint modern 69 and 70 coins there is probably a spillover into the older series with a tightening of standards.

 

I had this PL Morgan that absolutely bowled over the buyer in hand: http://i.imgur.com/a6vQQ3d.jpg Conserved from this holder: http://i.imgur.com/Ir0qfVZ.jpg

 

 

[MarkFeld]

The PCGS MS66 1879-S with the band of color, sure looks like a 67 to me, based on the obverse image. And a grade of MS65 seems unfathomable. So my first thought is that perhaps there is a flaw which isn't apparent in the image.

[dragon]

Hack, I am not a "crack-out artist" nor do I crack coins out of holders with any frequency unless I'm putting them in Capital holders for my collection long term. I sometimes resubmit coins which I feel are undergraded just basically for my personal satisfaction and curiousity, and not to resell or flip or as a means of making money. Over the past 28 years or so, I've had as many as 6 out of 7 coins upgrade in one resubmission, and then I also very infrequently get results like I just got. In any case, the coins haven't changed, I just wasted some time and money and I will put these into Capital holders and be happy with them.

 

 

 

MarkFeld, Yes, that '79-S is indeed a really sharp 66+ or better piece IMO with no surprises. I was really disheartened how that just graded and cannot figure what NGC was thinking on that one in particular. I've seen many worse common date Morgans in NGC 67 holders over the years.

[BillJones]

The PCGS MS66 1879-S with the band of color, sure looks like a 67 to me, based on the obverse image. And a grade of MS65 seems unfathomable. So my first thought is that perhaps there is a flaw which isn't apparent in the image.

 

I too think that he got hosed on the "MS-65" grade for that coin, but if you want to call it an MS-67, what about the mark in the field in front of Ms. Liberty's nose, the tiny flaws around that one, the tiny marks on the face? Once you get beyond MS-66 with a Morgan Dollar, you are starting to get into the almost perfect category where you have to hunt to find something wrong. That might sound harsh, but when MS-68 and 69 seem to be virtually off the table for Morgan Dollars, it comes down to that.

 

Oddly, I see modern coins with high MS numbers that have more problems in MS-67. It does not make sense to me that's the way they are graded.

[MarkFeld]

The PCGS MS66 1879-S with the band of color, sure looks like a 67 to me, based on the obverse image. And a grade of MS65 seems unfathomable. So my first thought is that perhaps there is a flaw which isn't apparent in the image.

 

I too think that he got hosed on the "MS-65" grade for that coin, but if you want to call it an MS-67, what about the mark in the field in front of Ms. Liberty's nose, the tiny flaws around that one, the tiny marks on the face? Once you get beyond MS-66 with a Morgan Dollar, you are starting to get into the almost perfect category where you have to hunt to find something wrong. That might sould harsh, but when MS-68 and 69 seem to be virtually off the table for Morgan Dollars, it comes down to that.

 

Oddly, I see modern coins with high MS numbers that have more problems in MS-67. It does not make sense to me that's the way they are graded.

 

Based on the (many) MS67's I've seen, the coin looks about mid-range as a 67 to me. And the flaws you noted, look quite minor.

[david3142]

I agree that the 1879-S looks like a 66+ or 67 and I can't get more specific than that from the picture. I think the 80-S is a beautiful 66 but looks like it could have some chatter. Nevertheless, the PL surface and awesome luster balance that out.

 

Bill, there are close to 1000 Morgan dollars in MS68. Even many of these that I have seen have marks that would show up in a picture similar to those posted by the OP. And 67s generally have one or two small nicks that are obvious (but not distracting) at a quick glance.

 

Here is a 68 recently auctioned by Legend.

 

and here is another Legend 68 CAC:

[david3142]

I would add to the above:

 

1) a lot of 68s don't seem "all there" to me and I would certainly pass on the first one (especially given that image). The picture of that coin in the slab with different lighting makes it look much better.

2) I didn't cherrypick these coins, they were the first two I could find

3) The second coin sold for quite a bit more than the first ($6400 vs $4100). Some of that is the sticker alone, but I'd wager the coin quality had a lot to do with it too.

[Hard Times]

The PCGS MS66 1879-S with the band of color, sure looks like a 67 to me, based on the obverse image. And a grade of MS65 seems unfathomable. So my first thought is that perhaps there is a flaw which isn't apparent in the image.

 

I too think that he got hosed on the "MS-65" grade for that coin, but if you want to call it an MS-67, what about the mark in the field in front of Ms. Liberty's nose, the tiny flaws around that one, the tiny marks on the face? Once you get beyond MS-66 with a Morgan Dollar, you are starting to get into the almost perfect category where you have to hunt to find something wrong. That might sould harsh, but when MS-68 and 69 seem to be virtually off the table for Morgan Dollars, it comes down to that.

 

Oddly, I see modern coins with high MS numbers that have more problems in MS-67. It does not make sense to me that's the way they are graded.

 

Based on the (many) MS67's I've seen, the coin looks about mid-range as a 67 to me. And the flaws you noted, look quite minor.

 

This string of comments is exactly why grading is subjective. Two noted numismatists that have many decades of experience and have seen/graded a gazillion coins. And they see it differently for the grade. So NGC saw them as 65's in hand, and that was the collective opinion of several expert graders. It would be interestinng for Bill and Mr. Feld to see them in hand and then assess a grade. When you play the crack out game, you can now see why in many cases you risk losing value as much as you risk gaining value.

 

Best, HT

[coinman1794]

Interesting how some can make such precise definitive grading calls on selected pics, yet in the next sentence defend and downplay the pics of other coin pics showing similar grades. Also interesting how this poster claims you must avoid using an overgraded coin an example of how the next coin should be graded when in fact I was at a lecture some years back given by one of the founders of a major top 2 grading firm who stated that is pretty much exactly how coins are graded......compared against their peers in same/similar grades and also against a previously graded set of varying quality examples with assigned grades to their reference standard.

 

 

 

Your characterization of my comments is not correct. I deliberately and purposefully stated that my observations were limited to a less than ideal view of the obverse of each coin, and that seeing the coin in person might yield a different opinion. It is never a good idea to grade a coin definitively from a photograph.

 

Also, the first coin has a reeding mark, the coins in the other pictures have luster grazes. There is a big difference between these two types of abrasions when trying to judge them from pictures. As I stated, a luster graze can be very exaggerated by photography because they can all but disappear in-hand if a coin has great luster; reeding marks, less so.

 

Grading services have been known to use grading sets to grade coins. That does not correlate to a dealer or collector who looks at an overgraded coin and assumes that all coins of that quality are going to make the same grade. This is a common mistake, and one I have found myself temped by in the past.

[Danye West]

I think we're all forgetting the reverses of those coins could be beat up for all we know.

80% is the rough estimate of NGC and PCGS percoeved accuracy right? The odds aren't in your favour is the TPGs think it was a 65/66.

[david3142]

I don't know where you heard 80%. I've never heard anyone even attempt to give an estimate of their consistency. Obviously, it heavily depends on the coin. Some are probably 50/50 and some would be 90/10.

[coinman1794]

I don't know where you heard 80%. I've never heard anyone even attempt to give an estimate of their consistency. Obviously, it heavily depends on the coin. Some are probably 50/50 and some would be 90/10.

 

I tend to agree with your figures.

 

However, on page 165 and 169 of Scott A. Traverse, "How to Make Money in Coins Right Now," Second Edition, 2001, John Albanese suggests first that most people will agree with 18 of 20 grades assigned, and then that "graders agree with the final grade...90-plus percent" of the time. Both examples suggest a 90% accuracy rate. This conversation is dated in some ways, and very useful in others.

[coinman_23885]

Well my grades were posted yesterday and apparently NGC had a different opinion, a very different opinion:

 

 

002 1880 S S$1 MS 65*

 

004 1879 S S$1 MS 65*

 

I would have called the first coin MS66 and the second coin MS67 shot MS66+. I would never have guessed that these would have graded so low either.

 

Why can't I ever be the person who submits coins like these and gets back grades like these??

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that those are awful. No wonder the prices have gone down so much on these if that is the quality that makes MS66 these days.

[coinman_23885]

<<< I am certain this will not be a popular opinion, but I think Morgans are routinely over- graded and any attempt to modify grading standards as a corrective action that addresses this problem is a good thing. >>>

 

 

 

So you are a proponent of 3rd party grading services basically changing the rules (grading standards) at a corporate whim? How should this affect the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Morgan dollars now residing in 3rd party holders that were encapsulated under a different set of standards? How can a collector have even a shred confidence in ANY grading service that willy nilly decides to change the rules of the game at random?

 

The TPG would never admit to changing the standards, or being tighter/looser. However, it is common knowledge that standards appear to change throughout history. There is widespread collector belief that certain periods at certain TPGs were stricter or looser than other periods.

 

I believe what afterword is saying here, however, is that the standard hasn't changed - the TPGs have just gotten a little looser. It is time to return to a more direct application of that standard.

 

It depends on whether you are buying or selling. I would absolutely love to buy the OP's coins at the current MS65 price. The problem is that the prices on generic MS65 and MS66 Morgan Dollars have hit rock bottom because of coins like the last two posted. The problem is that very few collectors will look beyond price guides or auction values. And even those that consult the latter, even fewer actually look at the images to determine whether the coin really warranted the assigned grade. The net result is an artificial depression in prices for high quality coins.

 

With this said, I think consistency is more important than whether the standards are loose here. Changing the standards is disastrous and compromises the stability of the market. So it appears that the services went from being ridiculously liberal to over correction. Neither is good for the collector. If PCGS and NGC are going to tighten the standards mid game, then they should be actively searching out overgraded coins and purchasing them from the market to restore stability. If the OP's coins are the new MS65s, then the price should not be in the $120-$150 range at all IMHO.

[Afterword]

"If PCGS and NGC are going to tighten the standards mid game, then they should be actively searching out overgraded coins and purchasing them from the market to restore stability."

 

 

 

 

I suspect this would be very unlikely to happen. I see only two viable options: stay with the status quo and continue to over-grade Morgans or correct the problem and let the market adjust to the change. As I understand from posts I have read here on these message boards, this would not be the first time the standards for grading coins have been changed. Obviously, the market survived the ordeal and there is no reason to believe it would not do the same in this instance.

 

This is if the standards are being changed, and there is no solid evidence this is the case. Even if they are changing the standards, I suspect it is being done very gradually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I suspect this would be very unlikely to happen. I see only two viable options: stay with the status quo and continue to over-grade Morgans or correct the problem and let the market adjust to the change. As I understand from posts I have read here on these message boards, this would not be the first time the standards for grading coins have been changed. Obviously, the market survived the ordeal and there is no reason to believe it would not do the same in this instance.

 

You are right that it is wishful thinking on my part. With that said, I don't think adding to market instability in a bad market (again it varies by series, but overall I would not describe the market as healthy except for very high end investment grade ($10k+ stuff)) is very wise. The coin market crashed in 1990 around the peak of the era of the so called more "conservative" standards and didn't loosen until after. It would have been interesting if the standards had changed in 1990.

 

This is if the standards are being changed, and there is no solid evidence this is the case. Even if they are changing the standards, I suspect it is being done very gradually.

 

It is difficult to provide solid empirical evidence in this context, and all we have our observations. With that said, both services certainly seem to have tightened up in recent years, and I am have seen more and more coins like Dragon's in recent weeks. With that said, you are absolutely correct to question sample size here.

 

[123cents]

I love the looks of the 79-S. I can see it as a 66+ or 67 if the luster is there.

 

[leeg]

Need Big Boy/Girl pants to play this game.

 

I used to but no more.

[dragon]

Well my coins finally arrived back today. Here's a few cell phone camera shots of my new NGC downgrades. I also forgot to mention that the first coin in this submission which was a previous MS64DMPL was just graded as 'Unc Details Improperly Cleaned'

 

 

 

 

[Danye West]

Despite being slightly blurry, I can tell the left looks like a 65PL. The right is too blurry.

[Hack]

Dragon, sorry to hear about your MS64 DMPL. What was the date and mint mark and can you post a quality photo?

[coinman1794]

It would be interesting to see the DPL that got the "improperly cleaned" designation. PL coins, like Proofs, are more susceptible to hairlines, and grading them can be inconsistent. At times, the graders find them too distracting, and at other times, hairlines on the same coin can be seen as normal wear and tear.

[dragon]

Just browsing through an upcoming major auction and stumbled upon the coin that NGC downgraded to a 65 for me which I recently sold. It's now in a new NGC holder as an MS66+* and CAC likes it too :-)

 

So that's 3 different grades/designations within a 4 -6 month time frame. I'll go on record as saying this coin will also eventually make it into an NGC 67 holder with enough resubmissions.

 

 

[BillJones]

I don't see a case for upgrading any of these coins. In fact one of them looks like "a gift" to me that is fortunate be graded as it is. To me an MS-67 needs to be a coin that makes you feel "enraptured" when you look at it. The coin needs to be pure "eye candy." That especially applies to Morgan Dollars made at the San Francisco Mint in the late 1870s and early 1880s because those coins were made so well. Going by the pictures, which, of course, can be tricky, here's how I look at these coins:

 

1880-S, MS-66 * (Both) There is way too much "stuff" going on in the fields to upgrade that coin. An MS-67 should have virtually flawless mirrors.

 

1879-S, PCGS MS-66, It's a very nice coin, but at the MS-67 level that mark in front of Ms. Liberty's nose would "bug" me. Using "Coin Facts" numbers, the price jumps from $275 in MS-66 to $775 in MS=67. For $500 more, I don't want anything that "bugs me."

 

The 1882-S in MS-66* is a gift. Going by the photo, that coin should have graded no more than MS-64, and I think is on the high side. To me it's an MS-63.

 

Maybe "grade-flation" will give you what you want, but I don't see it if one grades the coins objectively.

 

[rrantique]

Just browsing through an upcoming major auction and stumbled upon the coin that NGC downgraded to a 65 for me which I recently sold. It's now in a new NGC holder as an MS66+* and CAC likes it too :-)

 

So that's 3 different grades/designations within a 4 -6 month time frame. I'll go on record as saying this coin will also eventually make it into an NGC 67 holder with enough resubmissions.

 

 

 

I like it too.

[orifdoc]

Yup. Sucks to be on the wrong end of all this. Been there before.

 

I can't believe there are this many posts about the grading of these coins without a single photo of the reverse of the 79-S.

[rrantique]

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4328760-004/