Updated 11-5-12: Please guess the grade of this Proof Morgan Dollar?

[MarkFeld]

If you already know or learn of the grade, please do not post it here. Thank you.

 

Brief commentary to follow, tomorrow.

 

 

 

[/img]

[jerseycat10]

I'll guess PF68.

[physics-fan3.14]

Based on those nearly un-interpretable pics, I'd grade it PF-67 DCAM. However, those pictures could be hiding so much that it is nearly impossible to give an actual grade. Thus, I will give a grade range: PF-65 +/- 4 CAM +/-.

 

[mikew148]

Very high grade proof - Can't get a great feel for the surfaces from the pics.

Very clean....I'll let the experts chime in and await your commentary.

[Mark T]

Well from the photo the coin looks PF 68, however I doubt that it is .

I will say PF 67 at least a Cameo .

[brg5658]

A really good example of how worthless PCGS TrueView images are for grading coins.

 

I won't even fathom a guess based on those images.

[MarkFeld]

A really good example of how worthless PCGS TrueView images are for grading coins.

 

I won't even fathom a guess based on those images.

 

In their defense, you could say the same about just about anyone's images of just about any PROOF coin. It is generally impossible to provide meaningful grade guesses for Proof coins, based on images. And yes, I realize that I chose a Proof coin for a guess the grade thread.

[morganguru]

Looks like a PR68 me, probably DCAM, dunno.

Gorgeous piece!

[physics-fan3.14]

A really good example of how worthless PCGS TrueView images are for grading coins.

 

I won't even fathom a guess based on those images.

 

In their defense, you could say the same about just about anyone's images of just about any PROOF coin. It is generally impossible to provide meaningful grade guesses for Proof coins, based on images. And yes, I realize that I chose a Proof coin for a guess the grade thread.

 

While judging proof coins from pictures is often an exercise in futility, some photographers can use certain methods to produce an honest (and beautiful) view of a proof coin. TruView, on average, completely ignores any sort of honesty in their photographs and instead aims to produce the most flattering, exaggerated, attractive view of a coin possible. Hence in this example a coin which may appear to be 67DCAM could actually be a mostly brilliant 63. There's just no way to tell with these dishonest pictures.

 

It's not just this coin. Most PCGS TruViews I've seen are similar. That is why I hate them - the coin in hand generally looks absolutely nothing like the picture.

[Walkerfan]

Looks remarkably clean and sufficiently struck for a proof. I can't tell a thing about the luster or whether it is DCAM from the Trueviews, though. Based solely on strike and surface preservation---I'll say PF 67.

[bsshog40]

Seeings how the picture is all I have to go by, and I'm trying to presume that they represent the coin fairly accurate, not that Mark would try to fool anyone , I'm gonna guess 68Cam.

[Mary B]

PF67 is my guess

[toyman-migration]

PF 68

[e1cnr]

Very nice picture

 

I learned from you years ago that grading proofs from pictures is not very doable because you usually can not see hairlines. I also have learned that lighting and angles can make it difficult to determine if CAM or DCAM.

 

My grade is in the PF61 through PF69 area, and would never bid on such a coin from pics, even if graded by NGC or PCGS.

[$ilverHawk]

I know of this coin and am wondering about your commentary tomorrow..

 

Carl

[copper toning]

I know nothing of grading proofs but based on the pics I would say 68DCAM.

 

With that said from some of the comments I have heard about true views I wonder if there is any thing hidden in the pics.

[rrantique]

PF64+

[brg5658]

A really good example of how worthless PCGS TrueView images are for grading coins.

 

I won't even fathom a guess based on those images.

 

In their defense, you could say the same about just about anyone's images of just about any PROOF coin. It is generally impossible to provide meaningful grade guesses for Proof coins, based on images. And yes, I realize that I chose a Proof coin for a guess the grade thread.

 

While judging proof coins from pictures is often an exercise in futility, some photographers can use certain methods to produce an honest (and beautiful) view of a proof coin. TruView, on average, completely ignores any sort of honesty in their photographs and instead aims to produce the most flattering, exaggerated, attractive view of a coin possible. Hence in this example a coin which may appear to be 67DCAM could actually be a mostly brilliant 63. There's just no way to tell with these dishonest pictures.

 

It's not just this coin. Most PCGS TruViews I've seen are similar. That is why I hate them - the coin in hand generally looks absolutely nothing like the picture.

 

+1

 

While I agree that it is difficult to grade proofs from any pictures, I think PCGS goes out of their way to make coins look "pretty" in images, regardless of what the coin looks like in hand. I own several coins with PCGS TrueView images, and none (yes, none!) of them look like the PCGS images in hand.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

PF68+ DCAM (although a simple cameo designation wouldn't surprise me).

 

In their defense, you could say the same about just about anyone's images of just about any PROOF coin. It is generally impossible to provide meaningful grade guesses for Proof coins, based on images. And yes, I realize that I chose a Proof coin for a guess the grade thread.

 

I was getting ready to comment on this; Mr. Feld posting an image of a proof coin and asking for reliable guesses as to a grade?

 

I look forward to your commentary; I'm guessing that you posted this to make a point about the impossibility of guessing the grade of a proof coin accurately without a photograph. The same can also be said for cameo designation. We have quite an interesting range of grades, all the way from PF64+ to PF68+, and with regards to the contrasts, guesses ranging from no designation all the way to DCAM.

[Kamillion]

Pf66 cameo

[MarkFeld]

I saw the coin posted on another forum, and it supposedly resides in a PCGS PR69 Deep Cameo holder.

 

These are a few of the comments which were posted in the thread:

 

"What an incredible coin."

 

"Very Very Gorgeous....Finest Proof Morgan Graded according to PCGS......I'm 'lost in the watery mirrors"

 

"Amazing coin."

 

When I read the thread, my first thought was "I sure wish that the image had been posted and comments solicited, without including the assigned grade!". After all, chances of receiving unbiased opinions would have been much greater, that way.

 

Now, I will confess, up front, that if I have seen the coin in hand, it was not recently. And it might look very different from the image. In fact, there is a good chance that it does.

 

But I was admittedly somewhat bothered by both the assigned grade and the comments.

 

You might be thinking "What an , complaining about a coin like that" or "What a kill joy - having a problem with positive remarks about such a beautiful coin". If so, that's OK.

 

But here's what I see (or think I see) in the images:

 

1) A coin graded Proof69 that has almost certainly been dipped

 

2) And appears to have a dark stain in Liberty's hair.

 

3) And appears to have another dark stain on the upper left wing (to the viewer's right) of the eagle.

 

4) And which might have a stain on the upper breast of the eagle.

 

5) And which might have slightly uneven and/or discolored areas on Liberty's cheek - remnants of toning which was once present?

 

Perhaps it's just the images.

 

Maybe the coin didn't look like that at the time it was graded and encapsulated.

 

But either way, while the coin might be of extremely high quality and might look great, my appreciation of it is diminished considerably, by the thought that is is graded PR69.

[L1ncolnF4n]

67 CA

 

---

 

Read your statement about it in a 9 holder. I'm not stunned, but I think it's 2 points high that should have been docked fro the spotting as you mentioned, which is why I said 7 to start without looking.

 

 

edit for spelling.

[BillJones]

67 CA

 

---

 

Read your statement about it in a 9 holder. I'm not stunned, but I think it's 2 points high that should have been docked fro the spotting as you mentioned, which is why I said 7 to start without looking.

 

I agree. Stains on a Proof should lower the grade more than by just a point. Also most dipped silver Proof coins usually have little ridges where the removed, tarnished metal once sat. Maybe most collectors can't see these, but I can. I'd be surprised if this piece does not have them.

[e1cnr]

I was curious and had to look it up myself, and decided - wow, besides wanting to see in person, I would have wanted to have seen it 15-20 years ago. I feel it is possible that it has been has been enhanced in some way (no idea how - laser, etching, dipping).

 

It is definitely a nice coin, but I would never want invest $100K into it, when I would be happy with many proof Morgans that I could find for $5K.

 

In a way, I am happy for the registry competitions and how they bring up the values of upper graded coins, I just can not afford to compete at that level.

 

 

PS. It probably looked a 69 the day graded.

[MarkFeld]

I was curious and had to look it up myself, and decided - wow, besides wanting to see in person, I would have wanted to have seen it 15-20 years ago. I feel it is possible that it has been has been enhanced in some way (no idea how - laser, etching, dipping).

 

It is definitely a nice coin, but I would never want invest $100K into it, when I would be happy with many proof Morgans that I could find for $5K.

 

In a way, I am happy for the registry competitions and how they bring up the values of upper graded coins, I just can not afford to compete at that level.

 

 

PS. It probably looked a 69 the day graded.

 

I am extremely confident that the coin was neither lasered nor etched, though I believe it was dipped.

[physics-fan3.14]

Mark, shortly after you originally posted it I looked up the grade, and was stunned. The spots certainly preclude the assigned grade. I don't see how anyone can accurately judge that coin from those pics.

[rrantique]

1) A coin graded Proof69 that has almost certainly been dipped

 

2) And appears to have a dark stain in Liberty's hair.

 

3) And appears to have another dark stain on the upper left wing (to the viewer's right) of the eagle.

 

4) And which might have a stain on the upper breast of the eagle.

 

5) And which might have slightly uneven and/or discolored areas on Liberty's cheek - remnants of toning which was once present?

 

6) Also a stain between lower right wing between olive branch and bottom of wing

 

7)Something in the fields between left wing and wreath

 

8) rub in hair above ear or weak strike

 

What a powerful grade for this Morgan

[Kamillion]

That was a tough one.

[coinman_23885]

I saw the coin posted on another forum, and it supposedly resides in a PCGS PR69 Deep Cameo holder.

 

These are a few of the comments which were posted in the thread:

 

"What an incredible coin."

 

"Very Very Gorgeous....Finest Proof Morgan Graded according to PCGS......I'm 'lost in the watery mirrors"

 

"Amazing coin."

 

When I read the thread, my first thought was "I sure wish that the image had been posted and comments solicited, without including the assigned grade!". After all, chances of receiving unbiased opinions would have been much greater, that way.

 

Now, I will confess, up front, that if I have seen the coin in hand, it was not recently. And it might look very different from the image. In fact, there is a good chance that it does.

 

But I was admittedly somewhat bothered by both the assigned grade and the comments.

 

You might be thinking "What an , complaining about a coin like that" or "What a kill joy - having a problem with positive remarks about such a beautiful coin". If so, that's OK.

 

But here's what I see (or think I see) in the images:

 

1) A coin graded Proof69 that has almost certainly been dipped

 

2) And appears to have a dark stain in Liberty's hair.

 

3) And appears to have another dark stain on the upper left wing (to the viewer's right) of the eagle.

 

4) And which might have a stain on the upper breast of the eagle.

 

5) And which might have slightly uneven and/or discolored areas on Liberty's cheek - remnants of toning which was once present?

 

Perhaps it's just the images.

 

Maybe the coin didn't look like that at the time it was graded and encapsulated.

 

But either way, while the coin might be of extremely high quality and might look great, my appreciation of it is diminished considerably, by the thought that is is graded PR69.

 

Usually my grades are very similar to yours; thus, I am wondering if there is something that I am missing (monitor settings/color settings maybe?) or whether it is because I am not accustomed to grading Morgan Dollars at that high of grade. Also, I think many of the flaws that you cited are likely due to the images. Moreover, how do you distinguish meaningfully between a stain and toning based on those images (which are of mediocre quality)? I see some slight discoloration from toning; however, I don't think it is severe enough to significantly lower the coin's eye appeal (at least not for me).

 

What would you have graded the coin?