Errorists Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Do you think it is the correct grade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numisport Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Should have a Cameo designation (or DCam) Abdulah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 (edited) On 1/12/2024 at 9:50 AM, numisport said: Should have a Cameo designation (or DCam) I agree. Perhaps, Ultra Cameo and 2 grades higher, perhaps. Edited January 12 by Errorists Abdulah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldFinger1969 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) Need to hear from our resident Morgan experts. Tough to grade those variables from pics. But on HA...and it does look nice...seems about right. Not sure about 2 grades higher, that's above my pay grade. Edited January 12 by GoldFinger1969 Errorists 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 On 1/12/2024 at 11:30 AM, GoldFinger1969 said: Need to hear from our resident Morgan experts. Tough to grade those variables from pics. But on HA...and it does look nice...seems about right. Not sure about 2 grades higher, that's above my pay grade. I'd grade it as such . 1896 PF67 Ultra Cameo Reverse Strike Through. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Fenntucky Mike Posted January 12 Popular Post Share Posted January 12 Tough to impossible to determine CAM or DCAM based on photos, too many ways to make the fields look dark and have the details stand out more in an image. You'd have to see a coin like this in person to truly make a determination. Definitely a looker though. RWB, Errorists, GoldFinger1969 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) From the description: "1896 Morgan Dollar, PR65 Undesignated Cameo Contrast 1896 $1 PR65 PCGS. CAC. The Philadelphia Mint struck 762 proof Morgan dollars in 1896, down considerably from the 880 proofs of the famous 1895 issue. This impressive Gem proof exhibits sharply detailed, frosty design elements that show bold, but undesignated, cameo contrast with the deeply mirrored fields. The surfaces are well preserved and the high quality within the grade is confirmed by CAC. Housed in a green label holder. Population: 36 in 65, 39 finer. CAC: 5 in 65, 4 finer (12/23).(Registry values: N2998)" Photos show many fine scratches and some defects in the fields, plus a few contact marks in relief on both sides. I feel the grade is reasonable given current "standards." Edited January 12 by RWB GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Proofs are difficult to grade from photos, it is very easy to hide hairlines as Roger has shown in his post above. My bet is that while the op's photos make it look undergraded, and in hand inspection would confirm that the grade is correct. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 (edited) On 1/12/2024 at 12:20 PM, RWB said: From the description: "1896 Morgan Dollar, PR65 Undesignated Cameo Contrast 1896 $1 PR65 PCGS. CAC. The Philadelphia Mint struck 762 proof Morgan dollars in 1896, down considerably from the 880 proofs of the famous 1895 issue. This impressive Gem proof exhibits sharply detailed, frosty design elements that show bold, but undesignated, cameo contrast with the deeply mirrored fields. The surfaces are well preserved and the high quality within the grade is confirmed by CAC. Housed in a green label holder. Population: 36 in 65, 39 finer. CAC: 5 in 65, 4 finer (12/23).(Registry values: N2998)" Photos show many fine scratches and some defects in the fields, plus a few contact marks in relief on both sides. I feel the grade is reasonable given current "standards." Not even seen unless highly magnified and miss designated strike through on the reverse which is not even mentioned on the holder. Clearly a Deep Cameo, also. Edited January 12 by Errorists GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 This coin is housed in an older (1998 or before) PCGS holder that has likely acquired scratches and scuffs. At least some of the scratches appearing on your closeup appear to be on the holder, not the coin, but you can't tell for sure without in-person examination. That's one of the reasons why it is important to examine coins in person before buying them, especially coins as expensive as this one. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 On 1/12/2024 at 1:25 PM, Sandon said: This coin is housed in an older (1998 or before) PCGS holder that has likely acquired scratches and scuffs. At least some of the scratches appearing on your closeup appear to be on the holder, not the coin, but you can't tell for sure without in-person examination. That's one of the reasons why it is important to examine coins in person before buying them, especially coins as expensive as this one. Didn't buy it. But yes. GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Would it be safe to say, expense notwithstanding, you declined to buy this coin because it had no die cracks? 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 On 1/12/2024 at 2:06 PM, Henri Charriere said: Would it be safe to say, expense notwithstanding, you declined to buy this coin because it had no die cracks? 🤣 And it's a proof. Lol. Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 The detail photo is about 5x. Holder scratches, such as the long diagonals across ES, are clearly evident. The irregular handling marks on the coin field are on the coin. Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 On 1/12/2024 at 2:23 PM, RWB said: The detail photo is about 5x. Holder scratches, such as the long diagonals across ES, are clearly evident. The irregular handling marks on the coin field are on the coin. More like 40X.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 On 1/12/2024 at 7:16 PM, Errorists said: More like 40X.. Buy a good loop and view for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 On 1/12/2024 at 6:44 PM, RWB said: Buy a good loop and view for yourself. Anything more then 10x would be cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldFinger1969 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 On 1/12/2024 at 2:26 PM, Errorists said: Didn't buy it. But yes. How much did it go for ? What do similar coins 1 or 2 grades higher/lower go for ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 13 Author Share Posted January 13 On 1/13/2024 at 1:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said: How much did it go for ? What do similar coins 1 or 2 grades higher/lower go for ? Not sure there are any.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powermad5000 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Even the best coin photos can only reveal so much about a coin, any coin. I have seen photos from certain sellers that are "juiced". Every coin in their entire inventory that are NOT proof look like the one you posted. I have seen clear photos of some Morgans with so much frost on them and nice dark fields NOT get given even a PL grade. There is just no way to determine actual grade or surface descriptors such as Cameo or Ultra Cameo without having the coin in hand. Which is why when I am buying a coin online, if the seller has not left an option to return the coin for whatever reason, I absolutely will not buy from that seller. For me, that return option for online purchasing is critical. Once I get the coin in hand, then I can put it through my own inspection, and yes, sometimes I have found a need to return a coin. Sometimes a little tilt in the room lighting and suddenly some defect will appear which is not seen looking straight on at it. For the coin you posted, I would bet most likely the grader saw what they saw at the grading table and a resubmission of the coin would be fruitless. As far as Cameo and Ultra Cameo contrast, you might be able to make a case on that but once again, the coin would have to be in hand because the contrast could look completely different in hand than in the photo. Depending on the lens and lighting and especially with these digital cameras, the lenses of today are "interpreting" what they see in terms of light and depth and contrast. I can make adjustments to lighting while taking pictures of my own coins with my cell phone and make the same coin look completely different in two different photos. One picture might look more normal. One might look totally "juiced". Two looks. Same coin. Same camera. Different light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errorists Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 On 1/15/2024 at 12:13 AM, powermad5000 said: Even the best coin photos can only reveal so much about a coin, any coin. I have seen photos from certain sellers that are "juiced". Every coin in their entire inventory that are NOT proof look like the one you posted. I have seen clear photos of some Morgans with so much frost on them and nice dark fields NOT get given even a PL grade. There is just no way to determine actual grade or surface descriptors such as Cameo or Ultra Cameo without having the coin in hand. Which is why when I am buying a coin online, if the seller has not left an option to return the coin for whatever reason, I absolutely will not buy from that seller. For me, that return option for online purchasing is critical. Once I get the coin in hand, then I can put it through my own inspection, and yes, sometimes I have found a need to return a coin. Sometimes a little tilt in the room lighting and suddenly some defect will appear which is not seen looking straight on at it. For the coin you posted, I would bet most likely the grader saw what they saw at the grading table and a resubmission of the coin would be fruitless. As far as Cameo and Ultra Cameo contrast, you might be able to make a case on that but once again, the coin would have to be in hand because the contrast could look completely different in hand than in the photo. Depending on the lens and lighting and especially with these digital cameras, the lenses of today are "interpreting" what they see in terms of light and depth and contrast. I can make adjustments to lighting while taking pictures of my own coins with my cell phone and make the same coin look completely different in two different photos. One picture might look more normal. One might look totally "juiced". Two looks. Same coin. Same camera. Different light. I like coins shot in sunlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 On 1/12/2024 at 8:01 PM, Errorists said: Anything more then 10x would be cheating. Forget cheating. Anything exceeding 5x-7x power woulf incur the indomitable wrath of VKurtB! And sight-unseen? Out-of-hand? Fuhgettaboutit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 On 1/15/2024 at 7:10 AM, Errorists said: I like coins shot in sunlight. The principle of a single point as a source of light is well-known and lies at the crux of the argument between incandescence vs fluorescence for examining coins. The simple fact of the matter is because fluorescence floods a surface, the eye works overtime in attempting to establish any semblance of topographical relief from a surface where shadows are non-existent. One member swears by a circle of L.E.D. I have no experience with them. (I believe the proliferation of fluorescence is responsible, in part, for compromising the eyesight of office workers. The many detractors of flourescent bulbs are unable to prevail because they are cheaper than incandescent bulbs. powermad5000 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) The ANA has never recommended anything above 10x. The usual is 5x - 7x. I have a tabletop stereo microscope (you can see actual depth), and at its HIGHEST magnification setting, it is 30x. I usually view at 3-6x. A MICROSCOPE! It’s not for biological viewing, but for coins, stamps, and circuit boards. Edited January 16 by VKurtB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
