Do you agree with these grades? I sure don’t. Give me feedback 0

[2C2Numismatists]

So I just received 10’coins back and I feel

that I was done wrong. I don’t see how these grades are even close for most of them. Ill

Probably be sending them to PCGS after I open them up. I would leave them in the holder but I don’t want these grades to negatively affect what they truly should be graded at. So they can make their own determination from scratch. Unless  somebody can point out whatever I’m not seeing asto why they are graded this low, please LMK if you see something wrong with them. I’ll post the other ones as well in a little bit when I get home 

[2C2Numismatists]

[2C2Numismatists]

[JKK]

Photos aren't nearly sufficient to challenge professional grading opinions. For that, you'd need to get a lot closer and sharper. Most of those photos are not of the coin but the fingers, the surface, the holder, and the coins are at varying angles. Need to be straight on, top down, without glare, and larger. The reason for this is that if you think they grade higher, we need to be able to see the surfaces closely enough to see if we see whatever light wear or cleaning evidence the grader saw, and whether we interpret it the same way.

[2C2Numismatists]

YLook up this number 4841885-004 AU58 on this site And I don’t think anybody would disagree with me l. The 86 O has no scratches, not from circulating anyways. It should not have been below a 61, and that’s being very conservative. 63/64 is more it’s actual grade. I feel I was ripped off and that sucks cuz I DID like NGC more until this... The reverse has no scratches, no cleaning, and I have others that came back at 62/63 that are nowhere near as nice as this 86  O. Whoever graded them had to have been having a bad day, bc this is not an accurate grading. Yet they took out their bad day on my coins gradings. Not cool at all. Maybe NGC doesn’t like the working with the coin company I chose to send them in for me? I would say I’m at a loss for words with all this, but there are many many words that come to mind right now. 

 

Also look up 4841885-007 unc details

there has been no cleaning on that coin whatsoever. No scratches, no dull/shiny spots, no clean at all.  

 

Please, somebody from NGC look these up and tell me your opinion. I had professionals look at the coins before I sent them in and they agreed they should be higher and when they came in today they even told me, “You’re going to be disappointed.”  Bc they agree I was not given accurate grades. Please look these up and let me know. I don’t want to mess up the true census/pop reports more then they already are, but I will break them out of the holder and send them elsewhere if I can’t get a TRUE accurate grading. I also have about a thousand other coins that I will be sending in, in the near future, as this outcome will determine where I send them. Sorry if I’m coming off rude or disrespectful in any way, I just don’t think anybody who has true knowledge on grading could disagree with me on this. The person who graded it was wrong

Edited April 13, 2019 by 2C2Numismatists
Typos

[Mohawk]

JKK just typed everything I was gong to say.  It's extremely difficult to grade coins from photos over the computer and to even have a shot of doing so accurately, we'd need exactly the type of photos JKK has suggested to you.  In my experience, NGC's graders are usually correct in their assessments though, so I wouldn't expect a lot of us to disagree with them.  However, mistakes do happen, even at NGC.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Mohawk

[2C2Numismatists]

Please look up the numbers

4841885-005 AU58

4841885-007 UNC details

[Mohawk]

Alright, I looked them up......and you're not going to like what I have to say, but you're asking for input so I'm offering it.  I do agree with NGC on both grades.  In blowing up the NGC photos of the 1886-O, I did see rubbing on the high points of the coin on both sides, most particularly on Liberty's ear and the hair curls right above the ear on the obverse but on other high points as well like the eagle's breast.  The coin does have wear, however slight, which is consistent with an AU 58 grade.  It really doesn't take a lot of rubbing to bring a coin down to AU 58.  As for the 1891-CC, NGC was more lenient than I would have been on that coin by saying just the obverse was cleaned.  I think it was definitely cleaned on both sides.  If you look at the coin, there is discoloration on both sides that could be mistaken for natural toning at first glance.  But in blowing up the photos, this discoloration appears to be from a chemical agent rather than natural toning.  There is also discoloration around the stars on the obverse and what appear to me to be lines from an abrasive across Liberty's face and in the field along the bottom of the obverse.  I used to work in a brick and mortar shop and I've seen a lot of Morgans, both cleaned and uncleaned, and the 1891-CC has the appearance of a cleaned coin to me.  NGC also didn't mention the obverse rim ding on the 1891-CC, which I would have factored in if I were grading it.

So that's my opinion.  Not what you wanted to hear, I know, but you asked and I offered my thoughts.  Please remember that when you respond to me.  I'm not trying to be insulting nor disrespectful.  I'm just calling it like I see it and I hope that it's of some help.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Mohawk

[2C2Numismatists]

Why did I get a MS63 on this next coin if the wear would warrant an AU58 grade on the 86O?

4841885-003 ms63. 

 

There is much much more wear as well as many more scratches both on obv and rev. Where does the 86O have such wear that it’s 5 points lower?

[Mohawk]

7 minutes ago, 2C2Numismatists said:

Why did I get a MS63 on this next coin if the wear would warrant an AU58 grade on the 86O?

4841885-003 ms63. 

 

There is much much more wear as well as many more scratches both on obv and rev. Where does the 86O have such wear that it’s 5 points lower?

No....the 63 doesn't have wear.  It has bagmarks, which are different.  It has marks that it acquired from contact with other coins during the minting, transporting and storage processes but not true rubbing from wear.  The 1886-O does have wear from actual use and circulation, however slight.  The marks on the MS 63 Morgan aren't from use, so that's still a Mint State coin and Mint State coins can often be uglier than AU coins if they're extensively bag marked.  Appearance does not determine whether or not a coin is mint state or AU.  If it has no wear, it's MS.  If it does, it's AU.  The 1886-O has wear, even though in your eye it's a prettier coin, so it's AU. 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Mohawk

[2C2Numismatists]

Ok. I’ll see what PCGS says I guess. I’m trying to avoid having the numbers off more then they already are, but I’ll expedite it and see. 

 

Im not going by what is “prettier” in my eyes. I’m going by true wear and scratches/bag marks. I don’t see ANY scratches in the pictures. There are very very few bagmarks, not scratches. That’s with looking under a magnifier with good lighting. 

 

Just curious, are you the one who graded the coins? 

 

Ill post the grades that PCGS gives it as well as the other 90 Morgan’s I send in. I have a damn near MS set except for my AU 95s, and I’m sure ill get a better grade elsewhere. Sucks cuz I like your holders better, but I appreciate accurate grading more. I have a lot of near MS sets that are about ready for grading, at least $100,000 worth of grading that will go to whoever gives me the more experienced accurate grades

[Mohawk]

7 minutes ago, 2C2Numismatists said:

Ok. I’ll see what PCGS says I guess. I’m trying to avoid having the numbers off more then they already are, but I’ll expedite it and see. 

 

Im not going by what is “prettier” in my eyes. I’m going by true wear and scratches/bag marks. I don’t see ANY scratches in the pictures. There are very very few bagmarks, not scratches. That’s with looking under a magnifier with good lighting. 

 

Just curious, are you the one who graded the coins? 

 

Ill post the grades that PCGS gives it as well as the other 90 Morgan’s I send in. I have a damn near MS set except for my AU 95s, and I’m sure ill get a better grade elsewhere. Sucks cuz I like your holders better, but I appreciate accurate grading more. I have a lot of near MS sets that are about ready for grading, at least $100,000 worth of grading that will go to whoever gives me the more experienced accurate grades

No, I'm not the grader.  I don't even work for NGC.  I'm just a guy who collects and sells coins and who is working on a doctoral dissertation.  You asked for input and I gave it.  I just happen to agree with the person who graded the coins based on what my eye saw and my years of experience (20 this year) participating in this hobby.  If you want to try PCGS, go right ahead.  They're your coins and your money.  Maybe you will do better over there.....I've seen that happen.  But to me, NGC was right on with all of the coins you've shown.  I'd actually welcome hearing what PCGS does say about them....I'm unfamiliar with their grading standards and this could be an interesting opportunity to learn about them.

[JKK]

If you fully believe that you are right and NGC and Tom are wrong, then by all means crack your coins out and send them to another service. When one is that confident one is right, one should act on it and disregard the dissenting views. If you're correct, your coins will come back with the grades you have assigned to them, and you will be able to exult in vindication. Best of luck.

I look forward to reading the outcomes.

Edited April 13, 2019 by JKK

[Just Bob]

Be sure to post the grades that you get from PCGS, if they are what you expect, but also if they are the same or lower than you expect. 

[Crawtomatic]

@2C2Numismatists Glad to see the concern on census reports!  If you do crack them out and send to PCGS you should return the labels to NGC so they can update the reports.  

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7360/

[2C2Numismatists]

Will do. Regardless of grade being higher or lower, I will post them. I’m probably going to expedite them as well for a quick answer. If I’m wrong it sucks. I just don’t see any circulation marks anywhere. On the reverse there isn’t anything at alll wrong with it, and there is only a few bag marks on the obverse. If it were circulated I’m sure the rear would have some sort of sign of it. 

 

But yeah ill keep y’all updated 

[jgrinz]

17 minutes ago, 2C2Numismatists said:

Will do. Regardless of grade being higher or lower, I will post them. I’m probably going to expedite them as well for a quick answer. If I’m wrong it sucks. I just don’t see any circulation marks anywhere. On the reverse there isn’t anything at alll wrong with it, and there is only a few bag marks on the obverse. If it were circulated I’m sure the rear would have some sort of sign of it. 

 

But yeah ill keep y’all updated 

Owning both coins - I will agree with both NGC assessments.

I own a 1886-o in the exact same grade. I thought the same thing that mine was definitely in the MS61. Looking closer I understand it SO dont fight it, find what they are seeing.

Mine like yours has a LOT of chatter in the fields AND cheek. MOST MS specimens will have a fairly clean cheek hence I believe they went au route instead of the ms route. 

Where AU58 and MS61 are not that far apart with cheek and field chatter, I agree with mine and yours.

As for the CC - I can see cleaning on both sides - Your details on the coin are similar to mine at a 63 but mine has a boat load more luster so it even not cleaned would not get that far 

maybe a 61 or rare 62 :-) ..

As far as the 3rd coin - I see it as a 63 (barely) you are only more noticeable of the scrapes and chatter because of the PL surfaces.

but no surface wear to speak of.

Go ahead and send to PCGS but do it as a RAW coin … ( Yes there are inter-business issues on crossovers )  

Good Luck and Welcome to the boards.

[BipolarBaby]

i see blood splatter on the steering wheel. you have bigger issues at hand than getting your coin regraded. 

Cheers and Welcome to the forum.

Edited April 13, 2019 by BipolarBaby

[Edthelorax]

Not to bash the other major grading company in any way, but I sent 23 one cent coins to them in January. 2 were under-graded by at least a point (consensus among several dealers, and online opinions using very high quality images) 2 others were were slabbed red-brown even though they were 95%+ red IMHO, and definitely less toned than several same dated MS-RD that they graded as such. This I based on their image gallery.   One 1943 they graded as a MS66 even though it had to be "worked" before being sent in due to damage (zinc delamination)  from the Whitman. You can see the "environmental damage" all the way into the wheat ear in one spot. There is NO WAY that coin should have gotten a 66 IMHO. I was hoping to get a 64. 

I feel that my coins were graded with haste because I sent them in after the Holidays and right before they had extra workload form the FUN show. I believe the standards were tightened, what was an MS64 in 1995 became an MS 65/66 in  2015 and is now back to an MS64 in 2019. This inconsistency wouldn't be such an issue if collectors bought the coin instead of the holder. What used to be an opinion has become a pseudo fact for most when buying or selling. 

I guess my point is the grass is often greener on the other side of the street. I wouldn't expect to get better service from the other guys if I were you.

Good luck either way.