I Thought These Two Were Excellent Upgrade Candidates...

[dragon]

...and just for a some extra validation, so did the few very well known Morgan dollar dealers I showed them to at ANA a few weeks ago. The 1880-S was sharp 66 and a full PL, and the 1879-S a very high end 66 at worst with nice color.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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*

 

 

 

Of course my ultimate goal is to spend a lot more money and eventually get them both into XF45 holders, and with enough resubmissions I'm pretty sure that's feasible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Danye West]

The second coin looks like a very nice 66, bad luck I think.

[physics-fan3.14]

What results were you hoping for on each of these? Not entirely sure what your goal was in submitting them.

 

Without seeing the reverse of the 80S, I can't say for sure why it got downgraded. The mark under her chin may have played a part in that. The obverse looks fully PL in your picture, but the reverse may be different. At least you should be able to get some money back on a grade guarantee.

 

The 79S is puzzling. That looks like it should be 66.

 

I have heard several reports that the TPGs are tightening a bit lately. That's not necessarily a bad thing, in my book - if you play it right.

[KeyMan64]

I've seen things like this happen too many times. I would not have cracked them out

and I am surprised you did for regrading. Always a big risk there and I tend to be

a little more risk averse. If the 79-S toning looks dull and not full of luster then

I could maybe see that happening. For a 66 to happen the luster has to be there.

Just saying this because of the way the photos look.

 

They do look like nice coins though. Good luck!

[dragon]

<<< I have heard several reports that the TPGs are tightening a bit lately. >>>

 

 

 

A bit, 'ya think?? Where's that guy Captain Obvious when you need him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

With the marks and chatter on the portrait and field, MS65 is reasonable for both coins.

[MarkFeld]

How about some reverse images?

[wdrob]

 

The sooner folks learn that you submit coins to a TPG company for preservation in a slab and they throw in an opinion for free, is the day that something such as this submission will no longer surprise.

 

 

 

 

[dragon]

With the marks and chatter on the portrait and field, MS65 is reasonable for both coins.

 

 

 

 

How true. Once you realize there is a 70 point grading scale, anything within a 10 - 15 point range or so would be considered reasonable one could argue. Hence, these coins could have been graded AU55 and that would be reasonable.

[Walkerfan]

There are some minor scratches, in the fields, but the devices (esp. the cheeks) are exceptionally clean. The obverse of these coins certainly look MS 66 IMHO.

[Afterword]

The reverses on these coins lack detail and lean heavily toward featureless.

[dragon]

Here's a high res shot on the 1880-S obv. when it was raw, and I think the other pic is the rev. on the '79-S when it was raw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Raisethis2]

NGC has been hard on Morgans for well over a year. I won't send them here as a result. Send them ATS and see what they think.

 

On the other hand wdrob was exactly correct. Cracking them was the worst thing you could do. If you can get an upgrade opinion on a coin while still in the slab, don't chance it.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

NGC has been hard on Morgans for well over a year. I won't send them here as a result. Send them ATS and see what they think.

 

On the other hand wdrob was exactly correct. Cracking them was the worst thing you could do. If you can get an upgrade opinion on a coin while still in the slab, don't chance it.

 

 

Cracking coins out in order to resubmit them, can be the worst thing to do, but it can also be the best thing to do. I have heard countless reports of coins being resubmitted in the holder, failing to upgrade, then later being cracked out and upgrading.

[Afterword]

"NGC has been hard on Morgans for well over a year."

 

 

 

 

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.

[Hack]

The coins looked correctly graded in the original slabs at MS66 more in line to get a Bean than an upgrade. I do not see the upside that your were shooting at to crack-out for a 66+ or 67. I quit playing the Morgan crack-out game as there is too much risk.

[RWB]

Even with the larger photo, it remains MS65. (Enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek "AU55" comment, though. Nice invocation of a non-existent "grade.")

[dragon]

<<< 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?

[physics-fan3.14]

<<< 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.

[dragon]

Even with the larger photo, it remains MS65. (Enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek "AU55" comment, though. Nice invocation of a non-existent "grade.")

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's always one in every crowd

[Afterword]

"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?"

 

 

 

 

Adversely (in a monetary sense), I suspect, but corrective action is warranted nonetheless (in my opinion).

 

 

 

 

"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?"

 

 

 

 

I would not call a corrective action "willy nilly". I would expect, if a need for correction is realized, to not address it would be negligent on the part of the third party grading services.

[dragon]

A corrective action.....seriously??

 

For any professional 3rd party grading service that charges a fee for their opinion to maintain credibility they must decide on a set of standards they intend to stick with at inception, not take 'corrective actions' as they see fit.

 

If they feel the need to change their grading standards midstream, they should announce they are now grading future submissions to a new and different standard and their new slabs should be distinguishable to reflect this.

[Afterword]

"For any professional 3rd party grading service that charges a fee for their opinion to maintain credibility they must decide on a set of standards they intend to stick with at inception, not take 'corrective actions' as they see fit."

 

 

 

So if they realize they are over-grading or under-grading a certain series, they should pretend otherwise to project the illusion of infallibility, instead of taking corrective action? That may be what you want, but it is certainly not what I expect from a professional third party grading service.

 

Serious collectors will be aware of the change no matter how gradually it is established, and will also be fully aware of the inexact science of coin grading and the need to evolve and improve. An announcement would serve no useful purpose.

 

 

[coinman1794]

...and just for a some extra validation, so did the few very well known Morgan dollar dealers I showed them to at ANA a few weeks ago. The 1880-S was sharp 66 and a full PL, and the 1879-S a very high end 66 at worst with nice color.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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*

 

 

 

Of course my ultimate goal is to spend a lot more money and eventually get them both into XF45 holders, and with enough resubmissions I'm pretty sure that's feasible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based only on obverses, the 1880-S has a large bag mark that should prevent an MS66 almost every time. The coin was clearly low-end for the 66 grade. Someone gave bad advise on this one.

 

The 1879-S looks like a beautiful 66+.

 

The two other coins have very light luster grazes only, and probably look very different in person. However, I don't know if I care for the grade on either piece. Luster grazes that are nearly invisible in person can look like the Grand Canyon in photographs, when they cross Liberty's cheek.

 

Every coin is a unique case due to the nature of coins. The presence of an over-graded coin in a slab does not mean that the services will over-grade every other similar coin you send them (as you have now discovered). One must avoid using an overgraded coin as an example of how the next coin should be graded.

 

Also, the services tend to vary in opinions by a point or two, either way, and these cases are very commonly encountered. All of your samples are within a couple of points of each other, so this change in grade is not at all unusual.

 

Again, based only on the obverses, it looks like the 1880-S was correctly graded on the second try, and the 1879-S was very conservatively graded.

[World Colonial]

"For any professional 3rd party grading service that charges a fee for their opinion to maintain credibility they must decide on a set of standards they intend to stick with at inception, not take 'corrective actions' as they see fit."

 

 

 

So if they realize they are over-grading or under-grading a certain series, they should pretend otherwise to project the illusion of infallibility, instead of taking corrective action? That may be what you want, but it is certainly not what I expect from a professional third party grading service.

 

Serious collectors will be aware of the change no matter how gradually it is established, and will also be fully aware of the inexact science of coin grading and the need to evolve and improve. An announcement would serve no useful purpose.

 

 

I agree with you and Physics-Fan on this concept. I consider it common knowledge.

 

On the other hand, I also think this is an example of the trivial differences between two higher grades on the Sheldon scale regardless of what number NGC or PCGS assign on the label, an opinion I have expressed many times before which I know is not popular here. It is obviously financially significant but from the collectible standpoint, it is irrelevant.

[dragon]

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.

 

 

Another remark I find perplexing from another poster is that a top tier grading firm at random points in time somehow wakes up and realizes they have been either under or overgrading a certain series and should take corrective action by reverting back to a past standard they were previously using by either loosening or tightening their current standard in order to prevent the illusion of infallibility.

 

The top 2 grading services are probably among the sharpest and most experienced individuals in the entire numismatic industry and IMO they know exactly what they are doing as well as how they are grading at any given time. While in the real world it's obvious to anyone who's been seriously into coins for many years that the 3rd party grading firms standards do in fact 'adjust' over time, I feel it's for far different reasons and I will keep those opinions to myself. :-)

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

So its a conspiracy, then?

[Afterword]

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.

 

 

Another remark I find perplexing from another poster is that a top tier grading firm at random points in time somehow wakes up and realizes they have been either under or overgrading a certain series and should take corrective action by reverting back to a past standard they were previously using by either loosening or tightening their current standard in order to prevent the illusion of infallibility.

 

The top 2 grading services are probably among the sharpest and most experienced individuals in the entire numismatic industry and IMO they know exactly what they are doing as well as how they are grading at any given time. While in the real world it's obvious to anyone who's been seriously into coins for many years that the 3rd party grading firms standards do in fact 'adjust' over time, I feel it's for far different reasons and I will keep those opinions to myself. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

The motives of the third party grading services (if any exist) for over-grading Morgans (and that they do indeed over-grade Morgans is not an established fact) is the subject for another discussion. Whatever the reason, correcting the problem (if it exists and the third party grading services come to realize it is a problem) is the best and most responsible action to take on the part of the third party grading services.

 

 

 

 

 

*As for your obvious distortion of what I wrote (although I must admit it is unclear if it was deliberate or just ill-conceived phasing) this footnote will have to suffice.

 

 

[Hack]

Dragon,

 

Both your coins are very attractive and I would love to own the coins in the MS65 or 66 grade. I recall a previous post where you submitted 4 crack-out Morgans to PCGS and you were not happy with the downgrades. You must be money ahead in the crack-out game or you would not keep trying to beat the grade system. I am curious after your issues with the PCGS downgrades, why did you continue to play the crack-out game?

[RWB]

Grading of coins is not, and never has been, objective.

 

Grading coins is neither science nor art - it is a trade practice built on shared opinions and descriptions.

 

The major authentication companies perform two services on the items they receive:

 

A) Authentication by "light" scientific analysis of physical properties;

B) Opinion of state of preservation (grade).

 

Only A is repeatable to a reasonable level of certainty.