| Author |
 Replies: 34 / Views: 3,856 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
199 Posts |
@ SuperDave: I'd say that's a nice ms62 eds vam-1f  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
They really backed off the die spacing on that 1888-O. I've seen a lot of similar coins in MS63 slabs lately. I think AU90o nailed the variety as VAM1F without the obverse die crack.
Oh and goly1382 you would be wise to absorb the information being offered to you from the knowledgeable individuals on this site. It is very accurate and free for the asking.
Edited by dave700x
08/29/2012 8:58 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
432 Posts |
The 86-O is AU53 details. I don't know about SuperDaves 88-O, I will go with MS61-62 just because of the marks in the obverse field. Darn soft strikes.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
I forgot to grade SuperDaves Morgan. I would say MS-63, and possibly a 64
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
The 1886-O shown in the OP's photo is an AU coin! I would pay AU53 price maximum for the coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I have to say low AU and could be cleaned on the 1886-O. The 1888-O is MS even though it has a lot less detail than the 1886-O.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Now, OP, consider why everyone is calling the "worn" coin I posted MS while they're all calling yours circulated.
For the record, IIRC the one I posted was cracked from NGC MS-63. It belongs to CCF Moderator Metalman.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
@SsuperDave did you take a belt sander to that coin after you cracked it out ? << just kidding it's really nice for a weak strike! >>
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2541 Posts |
Goly, There's a lot that goes into grading, and the more time I spend on this forum the less I realize I know about it. I have learned a lot here, and I would take the advice given.
1) this isn't an MS coin
2) the person selling it has tried to make it look that way since there is a lack of bag marks. This is only one component of grading, and the wear on the high points and lack of cartwheel is a giveaway.
We all make mistakes, hopefully these weren't too costly for you...
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
We all make mistakes, hopefully these weren't too costly for you... I ran down this and one other of the group posted by the OP at their auctions; they are "slabbed" by a basement slabber with a high grade and represented a significant loss on the poster's part. I better understand the poster's unwillingness to listen to our advice. He threw a *lot* of money away on these. Goly1382, knowing that these all likely came in the same useless slabs greatly worries me. Not only are the grades absolutely untrustworthy, chances are that even the ones which look "good" have unoriginal surfaces which lessens their value. Do not touch slabs from other than PCGS, NGC, ANACS or ICG until you learn to grade. Let the hard lesson stop here. It hurts me to watch unknowing people doing this. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
this is definitely not a MS coin at all. it would be lucky to get a grade anything above AU-55 and even then it would be a problem coin because it looks polished/cleaned. I have a few MS-64-67 Morgans in my collection and to this one isn't even close. The only way it would get a grade like the OP is saying is if it was from SGS,PCCC,NAC or any of the other bottom feeders that slab coins in their basement, no REAL Third Party Grader would give it a grade anywhere near those numbers. I also have the same date/mm of this coin graded MS-61 that was given to me as a gift graded by PCGS and this coin doesn't even look close to that. My advice to the op mirrors SuperDave's in saying that he really needs to learn to grade before buying any more Morgans because if he is paying anywhere near the worth of the grades he is saying it will be costly for him before he actually learns and I mean real costly Quote:
@ SuperDave:
I'd say that's a nice ms62 eds vam-1f I am sure you are talking about the coin SsuperDdave posted and not commenting the grade he gave on the OP's coin, I just hope the OP doesn't read it and think you are saying you believe his coin is that grade and that is why I added this to my post so maybe it will clear it up to the OP on what coin you were referring to |
|
Valued Member
United States
199 Posts |
@ Bryan1315 post above:
Yes, I'm referring to SsuperDdave's 1888-O coin being a VAM-1F with my estimate as MS62.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I'm hoping the OP has taken the advice here and even better, was able to return this and the 1882 O/S.
Although the last visit was 8/29.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
yeah I am guessing he didn't like the information he was given and may not be back. Its hard to hear you overpaid on an item especially when the coin is in a bottom feeder slab and you don't know how to grade yourself and they take the number on the slab as being correct because they believe if its in a slab it had to be done by an actual Third Party grader that knew how to grade and they out their true expert opinion of what grade they thought it was. We have had many such slabs show up on here and it hardly ever ends well where the member sticks around to actually learn how to grade or other things about numismatics
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2541 Posts |
I think the ANA needs to blow the whistle one some of these crappy TPGs. They're a detriment to the hobby and may end up pushing people away from the hobby with bad experiences. While there is no "TRUE" grade everyone can agree on for a coin, the standards are fairly well established to the point where these people are doing nothing but trying to take advantage of people. |
| |
Replies: 34 / Views: 3,856 |
First Page
Posted 08/29/2012 8:54 pm
