1890-CC Morgan

I agree MS-63,maybe 64

Well, since you changed the rules...

I now think I would call it 64.

Like the 1891CC Morgan and for the same reason stated in that thread, I cracked out this 1890CC from an NGC slab and submitted it as a raw coin to PCGS. NGC had graded it as MS-62 which I thought was fair given the scratch on Liberty's chin, jaw, and neck. PCGS sent it back in a body-bag as CLEANED.

Comparing the two Morgans in hand, a major advantage I have over you all, I see absolutely no difference in luster between the two. I certainly do not see any sign of cleaning nor dipping in this 90CC. If anything, there is still a little original frost on Liberty's face which would have disappeared with any cleaning/dipping. Not visible in either the scan nor the photo is what might be a very slight die crack starting at the 3 o'clock position with the "M" in Unum and running through the first three stars below the M. Comparing these Morgans with several other PCGS MS-63 to -65 Morgans in my collection, I see absolutely no difference in luster; the differences are in marks only. (BTW, the photos were taken outside in bright AZ sunshine, an experiment which failed and became an exercise in futility.)

Again, note sent to PCGS with an image of the original NGC slab throwing the ball back into PCGS's court.

I have just about had it with PCGS. They also downgraded an NGC GSA 1884CC graded MS-65 to MS-64, also cracked out, but I can also live with the MS-64, at least for now. However, I'm not going to play games with PCGS anymore unless and until they stop trying to upstage NGC and every other TPG.

Fred

quote:

---

Originally posted by Susanlynn9

I think this is very interesting since many of the PCGS slabs I've seen lately have been overgraded in my opinion. Perhaps they are trying to tighten up their standards? Since you cracked it out, were they aware that the coin was originally graded by NGC?

---

No, not until I told them by email. I kept the original labels and slabs, BTW and also scans of the coins in the NGC holders if it ever came to an argument with them about previous grades or switching coins or whatever.

My experience has been the opposite: that Morgans graded by PCGS have been undergraded, at least over the past couple or so years. In the past 2 1/2 years, every time I've submitted a Morgan with hopeful and optimistic expectations, it's come back at my lowest guess or lower, and I consider myself a fairly conservative Morgan grader. I think older PCGS Morgans might have been somewhat overgraded, but in the past couple years, I've seen them really put the screws to Morgans. I had a beautiful PCGS MS-64 Green Label 1878CC that I KNEW would come back MS-65 based on other PCGS 64s, 65s, and 66s in my collection. Nope. Came back as MS-64 in a new slab, thus destroying any potential value the green label might have had.

Hi Fred,
I realize that to a true Morganophile such as youself this is apostasy, but I only have a few Morgans, and only a couple of those are slabbed, and I'm not good at fine grading popints in this series. I'd have to check my PCGS grading guide (at home now) to make sure my initial impression was justified, but before I read what others had posted, my first thought was 64-maybe.
For what its worth ;)
Don

quote:

---

Originally posted by SFDukie

Hi Fred,
I realize that to a true Morganophile such as youself this is apostasy, but I only have a few Morgans, and only a couple of those are slabbed, and I'm not good at fine grading popints in this series. I'd have to check my PCGS grading guide (at home now) to make sure my initial impression was justified, but before I read what others had posted, my first thought was 64-maybe.
For what its worth ;)
Don

---

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Don. Having the coins in hand and having a number of other Morgans graded by PCGS gives me the advantage for comparison. While I don't think either the 90CC nor the 91CC would make MS-64 although comparing them with other -63s through -65s I have, I think they'd have a shot of at least MS-63, possibly -64. I definitely think they were both badly treated by PCGS. I'd at least like to get them both back to some MS level. Unless PCGS surprises me, it's not gonna happen there.

Fred

It seems to me that you might be running into a couple of problems.

The first is that PCGS may be tightening up some on their standards since they had started to get pretty lax on some coins. They may also be trying to control the population reports more.

The second situation that I see here is that PCGS is now going to get additional money from you for their famed "Presidential Review". Are they starting to undergrade coins in order to get them resubmitted to make more money? I find the entire idea of a Presidential Review program to be ludicrous since the coins should have been graded properly the first time. I do not believe that PCGS will be helping their reputation by playing these games.

This is an update and companion thread to my "1891CC Morgan" thread which should also be read for related comments. Today, I received back my 1890CC Morgan which I had resubmitted to PCGS for Presidential Review.

First, to answer Susan's question, it's 20 bucks per for a Presidential Review. From what I got back, that works out to be something like $4 per second for a five-second review; add another 30 seconds to write up his "report". Add paper-shuffling time in and we'll call it $20 per minute. If he can maintain the rhythm, that's $1200 per hour, almost Bill Gates stuff.

Also, in response to previous posts: Susan, it could very well be a strategic move on the part of PCGS to suddenly tighten standards on its Morgan grading. I had not thought in terms of population reports, but it very well may be they thought Morgans were getting top-heavy and driving down the values. As a well-schooled mathematician, I really hope they are not trying to form a bell-shaped curve which has long been discredited as a measure of populations be they humans, wildlife, or coins.

I received back the 1890CC Morgan as "cleaned"... again. The handwritten note from (presumably) David Hall which accompanied the coin stated, "This coin has been abrasively cleaned, stripping the coin of its original luster. We do not grade harshly cleaned coins."

This just adds insult to injury. What started out as an NGC MS-62 worth $475 (per PCGS Price Guide) now has little value over bullion, not counting the $50 I have now spent on it for grading and Prez Review. I have dealt with a lot of cleaned coins and there is always some sort of indication that it has been cleaned. If this Morgan had been "harshly cleaned", its luster, if it had any left after a cleaning would be dull and there would be hairline marks in circular or straight patterns. Similarly, if it were dipped, it's luster would be completely different than a comparably uncirculated Morgan. I cannot detect any difference in luster between this Morgan and two PCGS MS-63 Morgans in my collection. And there certainly are no physical signs of "harsh cleaning". And according to my optometrist, I am NOT going blind.

In summary, David Hall just rubber-stamped his graders' previous assessment. Further, his "comments" state no evidence whatsoever that this Morgan has been cleaned at all; rather, he just made the unsubstantiated statement that it "has been harshly cleaned".

Again, as with the 91CC, as soon as I master my new Canon S2 IS, I'll upload new images. And, once ANACS has its transition to Texas completed, I'll submit it to them and live with their decision.

I have now completely lost faith in PCGS's grading competency. Yet I now have all PCGS Morgan CCs necessary for a Registry Set, sans the 90CC, but suddenly am looking at other options, particularly ANACS Registry when they finally launch it.

Fred