1890cc Morgan 1 1

[Stephen Parton]

Just signed up for a membership. Nice to meet you all.

I inherited a lot of coins recently and wanted your grading expertise on this one. It has some scratches on the face and left field but looks pretty clean otherwise.

Thanks for your opinions!

[MarkFeld]

Welcome to the forum.The coin looks to be somewhere between AU58 and MS61 with a few ring dings on the lower part of the reverse. Liberty's face and neck make me think AU58, but the rest of the coin gives me reason to think it could grade slightly higher.

[Stephen Parton]

Gotcha. I'm new to grading Morgans so thank you for that! 

If the obverse resembled more closely the grade of the reverse, would it be a 65 do you think?

[MarkFeld]

4 minutes ago, Salvus Eruit said:

Gotcha. I'm new to grading Morgans so thank you for that! 

If the obverse resembled more closely the grade of the reverse, would it be a 65 do you think?

Other than the rim dings, the reverse looks approximately MS66. However, far more times than not, the reverse is in better condition than the obverse. And grading is weighted much more heavily on the condition of the obverse than the reverse. 

[Stephen Parton]

9 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Other than the rim dings, the reverse looks approximately MS66. However, far more times than not, the reverse is in better condition than the obverse. And grading is weighted much more heavily on the condition of the obverse than the reverse. 

That's a huge help! I appreciate your expertise.

[RWB]

Very scraped-up uncirculated. A "classic" example of "MS-60."

Agree the reverse is nice, but that doesn't matter unless someone only wants the reverse and lets you keep the obverse.....

PS: The coin got this way by falling face-up in the receiving bin from a press. It remained in the same spot as a lot of other new coins fell on it. Reeds on a new coin are sharp and hard. The result was a once-nice Morgan dollar with a banged-up up obverse and nearly original reverse.

Edited April 23, 2020 by RWB

[bsshog40]

Yea it is a shame that the obverse isn't as nice as the reverse. Looks ms60 to me also. 

[DWLange]

My one purchase from the GSA sales of the 1970s was an 1890-CC dollar. My paternal grandmother bankrolled me, asking which would be the best date on which to bid. Looking at the numbers available, I told her to go for 1890-CC, and indeed it sold out on its first offering, costing her $55. When the coin arrived I was terribly disappointed to see that it seemed to have been dragged behind a truck. As soon as its wholesale value rose to that same level, I sold it to put the money into something more satisfying. Forty years ago there was no way of knowing how valuable any 1890-CC in its original packaging would become!

[Stephen Parton]

41 minutes ago, DWLange said:

My one purchase from the GSA sales of the 1970s was an 1890-CC dollar. My paternal grandmother bankrolled me, asking which would be the best date on which to bid. Looking at the numbers available, I told her to go for 1890-CC, and indeed it sold out on its first offering, costing her $55. When the coin arrived I was terribly disappointed to see that it seemed to have been dragged behind a truck. As soon as its wholesale value rose to that same level, I sold it to put the money into something more satisfying. Forty years ago there was no way of knowing how valuable any 1890-CC in its original packaging would become!

DWLange I hope you got the plate number of that truck. I think it got mine, too!

Cool story though. 50 years from now, I can't imagine anybody recalling anything similar involving bags of copper-clad Ikes (with all due respect to copper-clad Ikes).

[Stephen Parton]

Roger Burdette!! It's nice to meet you sir. I made a post on another forum about the 1922 Peace Dollar.. something that really puzzles me. Nobody could provide an answer, but told me to look for an "RWB" on the other sites and Voila! Here you are 

I hope you don't mind if I make a post about it and ask for your opinion in the near future. IF you can answer my question, sir, I will definitely find a way to send you only the reverse of this 1890cc morgan.

[RWB]

3 hours ago, Salvus Eruit said:

Roger Burdette!! It's nice to meet you sir. I made a post on another forum about the 1922 Peace Dollar.. something that really puzzles me. Nobody could provide an answer, but told me to look for an "RWB" on the other sites and Voila! Here you are 

I hope you don't mind if I make a post about it and ask for your opinion in the near future. IF you can answer my question, sir, I will definitely find a way to send you only the reverse of this 1890cc morgan.

I'll try to help with your question. You can start a thread here or send me a PM.

[World Colonial]

Sorry, but if the obverse image is representative of the actual appearance, I'd give it a "details" grade.  It's a semi-key date but still a common coin even higher grade.  I don't see how this one can be "market acceptable".  Anyone who want this coin can buy it at any time.

I own much older coins where the surfaces aren't "original" but that still look better than this coin come back with a "details" grade and I have seen many more.  No way any coin in any of the series I collect would ever receive a straight grade with an obverse anywhere near this one.

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Sorry, but if the obverse image is representative of the actual appearance, I'd give it a "details" grade.  It's a semi-key date but still a common coin even higher grade.  I don't see how this one can be "market acceptable".  Anyone who want this coin can buy it at any time.

I own much older coins where the surfaces aren't "original" but that still look better than this coin come back with a "details" grade and I have seen many more.  No way any coin in any of the series I collect would ever receive a straight grade with an obverse anywhere near this one.

Why would you give the coin a details grade? I see nothing other than substantial, but perfectly acceptable contact marks. It's just a matter of what grade the coin deserves, as a result. I don't see how this one can be other than "market acceptable".

[World Colonial]

22 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Why would you give the coin a details grade? I see nothing other than substantial, but perfectly acceptable contact marks. It's just a matter of what grade the coin deserves, as a result. I don't see how this one can be other than "market acceptable".

I consider it a very unappealing coin because the contact marks are so numerous and noticeable on the portrait.  You know TPG grading standards better than I do and I will also admit that I don't recall seeing any Morgan dollars in an MS-60 holder since there are so few.  (RWB provided an explanation how it occurred, so I presume that's why I am wrong.)

I don't think any coin like this one should receive this latitude as "market acceptable" when so many other better looking coins are available.  That's a big component of my definition of "market acceptability".  If the coin was at least somewhat scarce or rare where potential buyers had few or no choices, I'd use a different standard.

In a numerical holder, I'd "net grade" it to reflect what I think it would sell for versus others.  Not sure where that would be but probably a low AU at best.

Sorry if it sounds harsh.

[RWB]

Bologna to "market acceptable" nonsense.

The OPs coin, in my view, is MS-60 (or Uncirculated-60) because neither side shows abrasion from circulation or handling such as counting/fingering/sliding in a coin cabinet drawer and so forth. That is - no circulation. Sure it's ugly and banged up which make for an aesthetically undesirable coin, but mint state or uncirculated are self-defining and this coin fits the definition.

The open market will ultimately decide the value of the coin, but the "market" must never define or influence the condition of the coin.

Summary: Condition determines "grade;" Market determines "value."

[MarkFeld]

6 hours ago, World Colonial said:

I consider it a very unappealing coin because the contact marks are so numerous and noticeable on the portrait.  You know TPG grading standards better than I do and I will also admit that I don't recall seeing any Morgan dollars in an MS-60 holder since there are so few.  (RWB provided an explanation how it occurred, so I presume that's why I am wrong.)

I don't think any coin like this one should receive this latitude as "market acceptable" when so many other better looking coins are available.  That's a big component of my definition of "market acceptability".  If the coin was at least somewhat scarce or rare where potential buyers had few or no choices, I'd use a different standard.

In a numerical holder, I'd "net grade" it to reflect what I think it would sell for versus others.  Not sure where that would be but probably a low AU at best.

Sorry if it sounds harsh.

There are a great many coins (including higher grade examples) which, for one reason or another, are unappealing to many or most who view them. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't deserve a straight grade.

And while you're not alone in your thought, I disagree about applying different standards to rarer coins. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by MarkFeld

[World Colonial]

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

And while you're not alone n your thought, I disagree about applying different standards to rarer coins. 

My opinion on this aspect isn't specifically based upon the coin being rare, it's also what appears to occur. in practice from looking at many coins from many different series, countries and time periods.  I'll admit this is predominantly from images and the coin may look different under direct inspection, so I could be wrong in my impression more often than right.

My opinion on "market acceptability" is that it should be based upon the perception of those who predominantly collect it or at least have the most influence on the price.  So as an example, I have seen more than a few early large cents in numerical holders that appear to show surface problems.  Based upon the image only, I don't think these coins would likely receive a numerical grade if from another series, most of the time.  But if EAC collectors consider it "market acceptable", I'm ok with that.

As another example of a specific coins, Heritage sold an NGC AU-58 South Africa pattern 5 shillings last year.  It's an aluminum coin badly bag marked.  With only five known or struck, I personally would consider it "market acceptable" though I'm not sure the label made any difference.  It sold for about $20K but I don't know if it would have sold for less in a "details" holder.

The unique 1898 Single 9 South Africa pond is graded NGC MS-63.  (It's profiled on this site in the archives.) It has the first owner's initials subtly engraved on the obverse.  On most coins, this would probably be labeled "graffiti" but personally, I'd consider it ridiculous to give it a "details" grade.  That's form over substance, as it doesn't noticeably detract from the coin's appearance, it's obvious that it is concurrently considered the most desirable coin in the entire series, and that South African collectors do consider it "market acceptable", even if no one else does.

[Stephen Parton]

On 4/30/2020 at 8:25 AM, World Colonial said:

My opinion on "market acceptability" is that it should be based upon the perception of those who predominantly collect it or at least have the most influence on the price.  

Now that caught my attention. What an elitist way to determine a grade.. Not only is it highly unethical (the companies don't state anything like this in their Terms of Service).. but it would create a short-term bubble that leaves future generations clueless in terms of how to grade properly, which is by the Sheldon Scale ー i.e. the way in which these companies currently advertise they DO grade a coin. 
Suffice it to say, the FTC certainly wouldn't approve of such behavior.

[Stephen Parton]

And don't worry about this Morgan.. We have other 1890cc's in much better condition. Also, Mark / Roger gave a wonderful explanation as to the dings on it: this coin was on the bottom, and clearly just beaten on from those at the top. 

Let's hope that assessment doesn't become more figurative than it needs to be.

[World Colonial]

3 hours ago, Salvus Eruit said:

Now that caught my attention. What an elitist way to determine a grade.. Not only is it highly unethical (the companies don't state anything like this in their Terms of Service).. but it would create a short-term bubble that leaves future generations clueless in terms of how to grade properly, which is by the Sheldon Scale ー i.e. the way in which these companies currently advertise they DO grade a coin. 
Suffice it to say, the FTC certainly wouldn't approve of such behavior.

It's happening now, regularly though in low proportion.  That's why I provided the specific examples I did.  There is also little difference between what I described and TPGs changing their minds by assigning "details" grades initially and then a numerical grade if resubmitted later.  It's a low proportion but not unusual. 

You call these sentiments elitist but it should be evident that many collectors will give more latitude to coins that are much harder to buy or with higher prominence than another which can be bought at any time in multiple in practically any quality.  

More importantly, why would those who don't buy it or the TPG who has no idea what collector preferences actually are determine "market acceptability"?  There is no absolute standard.

In the examples I gave of the South African coinage, NGC "got it right" with the 1898 single 9 pond and might have "got it right" (my opinion) with the other.  The second coin is more debatable but they might have "net graded" both, something which isn't unusual either.  But presumably or at least generally, both NGC and PCGS apply a US centric standard of "market acceptability" and frequently have no idea how collectors of non-US coinage view the concept.  

I also don't share your concerns on "proper" grading, as there is no such thing.  It's an opinion and standards change over time.  I am also in the minority here where I see little if any significance between one or even multiple grade increments in MS coinage, except financially.  The primary purpose for grading most coins of meaningful value is marketing (as in money) which has nothing to do with collecting 

As for your coin, after I wrote my posts, I checked the Heritage archives.  There doesn't seem to be much if any price difference between an MS-60 and an "UNC details".  Both recently sold for about $450 on numerous occasions.  So you are unlikely to incur any noticeable financial penalty if you ever decide to sell it.

[Stephen Parton]

I see what you mean World Colonial, and I apologize for taking a tone with you because it's not you! I have a lot of coins that I've been wanting to submit somewhere, so I have many questions but receive multiple answers and from people that are well established in the field.

Even today, I had a long discussion with an ANA certified member / dealer that told me a 65 grade is basically perfect in terms of wear, and that anything beyond that (66-70) is purely subjective. "Good eye appeal".

Is that true?? Because the PCGS website mentions nothing about eye appeal but only the amount of dings/wear on a coin in determining an MS grade.

I'm just ready to get these things sent out and put in God's hands, but it's not as simple as that because a value should be determined on each coin before I do so, as you well know. 

But thank you for your lengthy messages. I can tell that you put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate it!

[RWB]

RE: "Even today, I had a long discussion with an ANA certified member / dealer that told me a 65 grade is basically perfect in terms of wear, and that anything beyond that (66-70) is purely subjective. 'Good eye appeal'. "

I find it difficult to wrap my feeble thoughts around that dealer's approach. (ANA does not "certify" coin dealers; they are simply dealer members versus regular members.)

Let's keep it simple and honest: ALL coins labeled "Uncirculated" or "Mint State" must, by definition be without wear. There must be no exceptions. Period. End of discussion.

The factors that separate MS-60 from MS-63, or MS-65, or MS-68 are the severity, quantity and location of post-striking marks. Some "grading" companies also include luster and/or visible detail (i.e., "strike") in their composite opinion of a grade. (I happen to disagree with that last part, but it is as it is.)

Wherever you send your very best coins for authentication and grading, you will receive their best opinion. Later, a buyer will likely argue that the "grade" is too generous and offer less than you feel the coin's value to be; but that is part of buyer-seller negotiation and does not change the coin in any way.

Edited May 2, 2020 by RWB

[numisport]

On 4/29/2020 at 2:20 PM, RWB said:

Bologna to "market acceptable" nonsense.

The OPs coin, in my view, is MS-60 (or Uncirculated-60) because neither side shows abrasion from circulation or handling such as counting/fingering/sliding in a coin cabinet drawer and so forth. That is - no circulation. Sure it's ugly and banged up which make for an aesthetically undesirable coin, but mint state or uncirculated are self-defining and this coin fits the definition.

The open market will ultimately decide the value of the coin, but the "market" must never define or influence the condition of the coin.

Summary: Condition determines "grade;" Market determines "value."

Again Roger you nailed it. Too many Bust coins (among other series) have had their grade enhanced by the market and I don't agree with this manipulation because it hurts TPG's credibility. There is too many AU 62 Bust coins in MS holders for me to accept these standards.

[kbbpll]

Whenever I buy a coin, that automatically makes it "market acceptable".

[Stephen Parton]

Well if it's like you say it is, then I'm all in. That's how I've always collected and exactly the way grading should be imho; with as little subjective nuance as possible. Imagine being color-blind and getting your coins back undergraded because they lack 'pretty toning'... there's gotta be some kind of lawsuit in that.

But you guys put my confidence in the system back in place! Thanks for your replies

Edited May 2, 2020 by Salvus Eruit

[Stephen Parton]

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

Whenever I buy a coin, that automatically makes it "market acceptable".

This comment is also "market acceptable".

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

The factors that separate MS-60 from MS-63, or MS-65, or MS-68 are the severity, quantity and location of post-striking marks. Some "grading" companies also include luster and/or visible detail (i.e., "strike") in their composite opinion of a grade. (I happen to disagree with that last part, but it is as it is.)

Wherever you send your very best coins for authentication and grading, you will receive their best opinion. Later, a buyer will likely argue that the "grade" is too generous and offer less than you feel the coin's value to be; but that is part of buyer-seller negotiation and does not change the coin in any way.

I don't care for the use of all 11 MS grades and certainly not the "+".  It's just more marketing to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance of what are overwhelmingly common coins.  I don't see that it adds anything to collecting and I consider it a pretension that this level of accuracy is meaningful.  Most collectors cannot grade to this level of detail.  

I also actually agree with you on "market acceptability".  It annoys me in particular with the primary series I now collect which I don't think should be graded under the Sheldon scale anyway.  The one NGC uses for ancients I think is far more appropriate for this type of coin.  

I have most of my coins in TPG holders but it's predominantly for future marketability; to make it easier to sell later.  It's probably increased the supply of what is available to buy somewhat but more than anything else, probably required me to pay more for a coin I could otherwise have bought for less.

[RWB]

"I don't care for the use of all 11 MS grades and certainly not the "+".  It's just more marketing to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance of what are overwhelmingly common coins.  I don't see that it adds anything to collecting and I consider it a pretension that this level of accuracy is meaningful.  Most collectors cannot grade to this level of detail."

Yep. A thoughtful collector, now deceased, once posted on another hobby message board a plot of statistical accuracy  over the plethora of uncirculated "grades." It was all mush -- and the host did not like it, so removed it.

[MarkFeld]

8 hours ago, Salvus Eruit said:

I see what you mean World Colonial, and I apologize for taking a tone with you because it's not you! I have a lot of coins that I've been wanting to submit somewhere, so I have many questions but receive multiple answers and from people that are well established in the field.

Even today, I had a long discussion with an ANA certified member / dealer that told me a 65 grade is basically perfect in terms of wear, and that anything beyond that (66-70) is purely subjective. "Good eye appeal".

Is that true?? Because the PCGS website mentions nothing about eye appeal but only the amount of dings/wear on a coin in determining an MS grade.

I'm just ready to get these things sent out and put in God's hands, but it's not as simple as that because a value should be determined on each coin before I do so, as you well know. 

But thank you for your lengthy messages. I can tell that you put a lot of thought into this and I appreciate it!

There are dealers who are ANA members, but I don’t think there is any certification of dealers by the ANA. And being an ANA member says nothing about their knowledge/expertise.

Grades above 65 are typically no more subjective than the grade of 65.

By the way, PCGS makes numerous references to eye appeal with respect to grading/grades. See here: https://www.pcgs.com/news/how-united-states-coins-are-graded

Edited May 2, 2020 by MarkFeld

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, World Colonial said:

I don't care for the use of all 11 MS grades and certainly not the "+".  It's just more marketing to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance of what are overwhelmingly common coins.  I don't see that it adds anything to collecting and I consider it a pretension that this level of accuracy is meaningful.  Most collectors cannot grade to this level of detail.  

 

I have no idea how accurately most collectors grade, but I do know that there are members of this message board who regularly grade coins quite accurately - usually within a point or so of the TPG grade, and they do it from pictures.