| Author |
 Replies: 61 / Views: 7,495 |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
So in a way,these Morgans can be compared to the 65-66-67 SMS coins? John1  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36800 Posts |
So it's not a Branch Mint Proof but a Specimen. I knew this was a special coin probably made for one of the Mint Officials.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
PCGS considers the branch mint proofs to be Specimens. There is a bit of mystery surrounding some of the oddball dates that appear to have branch proof strikes (e.g. 1895-O, 1882-O.) Some of them make sense (1878, 1878-S, 1878-CC, 1879-O, 1921, 1921-D and 1921-S) within their context as first strikes at their given mints.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2797 Posts |
I'm going with MS65PL, and a long-nock VAM 58 to boot. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2843 Posts |
Very interesting. When I saw this post, first thing I did was check if there were any known 1878 S Branch proofs. The article that I found was prior to the discovery of this piece and did not mention any. So I figured it was not a proof. Later in the day my phone actually suggested an article to me about this very coin. (technology at its best) My question is simple. Many of us - myself included - considered this to be a 66 or greater. Here is PCGS photograde example of a 65  Are they even close? Is this coin hiding something in its captivating color that justifies the grade that PCGS gave it? Are they stricter on a specimen coin than they would have been for a business strike? Or are they simply too aware of the scrutiny and publicity that this epic find will generate that they graded it to a higher standard? Your thoughts please. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
Quote:
My question is simple. Many of us - myself included - considered this to be a 66 or greater. Here is PCGS photograde example of a 65 I think what we are witnessing here is the PCGS photographer that takes all (at least I think) trueview images can make a sow's ear look like a silk purse. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2843 Posts |
Quote:
I think what we are witnessing here is the PCGS photographer that takes all (at least I think) trueview images can make a sow's ear look like a silk purse. I did consider that, but don't forget, that the same photographer (or photography setup and method) would likely have been used to take the PCGS Photograde pictures as well. The image that I uploaded came from their sample coin.... |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36800 Posts |
The 1879-S example is nice but isn't even in the running with the 1878-S OP coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Is this coin hiding something in its captivating color that justifies the grade that PCGS gave it? It's not out of the question, or possibly luster holding it back. The picture was done to sort of highlight the special aspects of it in this case. Quote:
Are they stricter on a specimen coin than they would have been for a business strike? For sure. The thing is once it was determined to be a specimen the grade itself turns more into a ranking system at that level of rarity. Whether they grade it a 65 or 66 the price isn't going to change, but they also are going to be conservative because if it a second one turns up that is clearly superior they need room to be able to grade it higher |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
Quote:
I think this picture is in the absolute best light possible, I'm willing to bet that the toning doenst look nearly as good in most other lighting other than the optimal direction. Quote:
Is this coin hiding something in its captivating color that justifies the grade that PCGS gave it? It seems that this is the correct answer, heres some different photos of the coin, much flatter colour and WAY less lustrous than the PCGS photos imply, granted they are pretty bad pictures but I'm gonna assume that most of the time this is how its gonna look unless you look at it at the right angle:   Edited by Adam_E
08/07/2018 4:42 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
484 Posts |
basebal21.... Back up the truck. You suggest that someone who stumbles on a possibly unique Morgan with a possibly doctored photo should not offer opinions on Morgans at all? Bite me. I have seen thousands of Morgan dollars. Your snarky reply is just bad form. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Back up the truck. You suggest that someone who stumbles on a possibly unique Morgan with a possibly doctored photo should not offer opinions on Morgans at all? Photo isn't doctored, that was clear from the start from the style. And yes if someone thinks something is fake which isn't it's time to look in the mirror. Quote:I have seen thousands of Morgan dollars. So? I've seen 100s of NASA launches, doesn't mean I could build a space ship |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4932 Posts |
Nicest morgan I've ever seen IMO
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
It would not be unreasonable to have thought the coin was a fantasy issue at first, a la Daniel Carr.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
| |
Replies: 61 / Views: 7,495 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 08/07/2018 08:48 am
