| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 2,423 |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Forum Mom
 United States
5877 Posts |
This one's a little tougher. The reverse looks UNC but the obverse either has a weaker strike in the hairlines or minute wear. I know that some of these show a weak strike, so I'm going to go with the MS63/64. The reason I can't decide which is because of the hit on the brow. I can't tell how deep that is but it seems to be somewhat distracting. It appears from your pic that it is in a PCGS holder. In that case, I'd say PCGS graded MS64 though I would probably grade it 63 if I were selling it.
Is this the VAM-3 Spitting Eagle? There seems to be something happening with his beak, but I can't tell for sure.
|
|
New Member
United States
32 Posts |
Based on the first pic's I'm going MS64 The cheeks seems fairly clean as well as the breast of the eagle. The fields look OK as well. I dont like the bump on the brow. I bet in hand its very attractive. Looks like the luster would jump out at you! Are you going to reveal the grade?
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
2684 Posts |
In hand, the bump on Liberty's forehead is visible only through a hand lens (loupe, magnifying glass). Alas, not the Spitting Eagle VAM although it almost looks like it in the scan; it it is, it's very weak. I had a good one once and the "spit" was very obvious, but it was in an NGC MS-60 slab and PCGS wouldn't cross it over, so I sold it. Still looking for Rick's comments. Given that I have out-of-town commitments tomorrow (Tues) and Wednesday, I'll provide the info later tonight. Fred |
|
Valued Member
United States
151 Posts |
Could go for MS-63 IMO. B12
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Hi Fred
Believe it or not , I think this is a much better coin than the first,, MS-65 especially if it is in a PCGS slab .Those couple little dings would not keep it from that designation ,,
Im pretty sure that the weakness in the hair and Liberty are strike related.
Rick
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
In truth, I cracked this 91CC Morgan out of an NGC slab and submitted it to PCGS as a raw coin. It came back AU58. NGC had graded it MS-61. I was willing to settle for PCGS MS-60. I have sent a note off to PCGS advising them of the situation, to wit: how could the two top-tiered grading services disagree by such a wide margin? I also included scans of the Morgans in their original NGC holders. No answer yet back from PCGS. I did the same thing with the 1890CC Morgan, but I'll explain in that thread.
I cracked them out of the NGC slabs because I was tired of submitting NGC Morgans to PCGS for crossover grading and having them returned in the same NGC slabs because they didn't "meet or exceed" PCGS grading standards. I can see this happening for a few, but every single NGC slab I submitted?
My choices at the moment are: (1) Resubmit to PCGS for Presidential Review at 20 bucks a whack; (2) Resubmit for Regrading using the Regular Service at 30 bucks per (I won't be around here long enough for Economy Service); or (3) Give up on my dream of a PCGS Morgan CC Registry Set (these crossovers would have completed the set) and resubmit to ANACS with a new goal of an ANACS Registry Set.
See the 1890CC thread for its story.
Thanks all for your observations, opinions, and input!
Fred
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
So PCGS attributed the weakness in the hair on the obverse to wear?
Thats interesting since the reverse shows no wear ,IMO, perhaps a little slide but nothing by PCGS standards that would bring the coin to AU.
Irreguardless I missed this one bad !!!
Back to the books on Morgans .
Rick
Edited by Metalman
02/21/2006 03:26 am
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
As I stated earlier, a lot depended upon that area in the hairlines - whether it was wear or weak strike. With wear, I could see this coin as an AU58. That's something I couldn't determine from the pics.
Same question as on the 1890CC: Was PCGS aware that this coin was originally graded by NGC?
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Susanlynn9
As I stated earlier, a lot depended upon that area in the hairlines - whether it was wear or weak strike. With wear, I could see this coin as an AU58. That's something I couldn't determine from the pics.
Same question as on the 1890CC: Was PCGS aware that this coin was originally graded by NGC?
No, I didn't tell them it had been cracked out until I sent my message to them a couple days ago. I agree the hairline above the ear alone could make it into either a slider or a weak strike, but usually with a true AU-58, there is some visible loss of luster, but there ain't none on this gem; it cartwheels as nicely as a couple MS-66s I have. And as Rick said, the Eagle has its full complement of feathers on its breast; it even has some frosting. I'm giving PCGS its final chance to give me a little satisfaction here; I haven't heard back from them yet (automated message not withstanding) which I would hope means that it's being kicked upstairs to higher echelons of management. If no justice, then it's bye-bye PCGS, hello ANACS. I'd also save myself a lot of money in grading fees and club membership costs. And I've got a big mouth and love to write letters.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
980 Posts |
Fred,
Out of curiousity, why not go with NGC registry sets? As a nonregistry set guy, I've liked the fact that NGC allows PCGS graded coins in their sets.
Don
|
|
Forum Mom
United States
5877 Posts |
Since ANACS is going to start registry sets that will include NGC and PCGS coins, they are probably the better way to go in my opinion.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Susanlynn9
Since ANACS is going to start registry sets that will include NGC and PCGS coins, they are probably the better way to go in my opinion.
I agree. PCGS requires only PCGS slabs in its Registries. I will switch to ANACS Registries in a Yankee heartbeat unless PCGS gives me some satisfaction. I'd also save a LOT of money over PCGS for its Collectors' Club membership and expensive grading submissions. I don't know if ANACS or even PCGS charges extra for Registries. As I mentioned to James Taylor in one of his threads in January, if I had known a week earlier that ANACS was going to open a Registry, I could have saved what has amounted to over a thousand bucks by not sending my coins to PCGS. It is entirely likely I shall switch to ANACS in any instance. It is my hope that under James' leadership, ANACS will be setting the new standard in coin grading practices. Fred |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
Please see my comments regarding my resubmission of this coin to PCGS for Presidential Review un "1890CC Morgan" thread.
Fred
|
|
Valued Member
United States
411 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Morgan Fred
In truth, I cracked this 91CC Morgan out of an NGC slab and submitted it to PCGS as a raw coin. It came back AU58. NGC had graded it MS-61. I was willing to settle for PCGS MS-60. I have sent a note off to PCGS advising them of the situation, to wit: how could the two top-tiered grading services disagree by such a wide margin? I also included scans of the Morgans in their original NGC holders. No answer yet back from PCGS. I did the same thing with the 1890CC Morgan, but I'll explain in that thread.
I cracked them out of the NGC slabs because I was tired of submitting NGC Morgans to PCGS for crossover grading and having them returned in the same NGC slabs because they didn't "meet or exceed" PCGS grading standards. I can see this happening for a few, but every single NGC slab I submitted?
My choices at the moment are: (1) Resubmit to PCGS for Presidential Review at 20 bucks a whack; (2) Resubmit for Regrading using the Regular Service at 30 bucks per (I won't be around here long enough for Economy Service); or (3) Give up on my dream of a PCGS Morgan CC Registry Set (these crossovers would have completed the set) and resubmit to ANACS with a new goal of an ANACS Registry Set.
See the 1890CC thread for its story.
Thanks all for your observations, opinions, and input!
Fred
After telling you this is not "almost" and not "about uncirculated." In fact it's not any form of not-uncirculated, and deserves a solid 64 with just a scuff on the cheek holds back from 65 (or maybe it wouldn't in someone else's opinion). As to PCGS going beserk in their silver dollar gradings, this is scary news because I just sent three crossovers silver dollars in nGC holders One of these was a VAM and since I wanted the attribution and it's a dandy coin, I put "any grade" because I too have a PCGS registry set dream and have been sending in pretty common dates. I think of the coin collector's industry as a club, in otherwords, PCGS has their MS65 clubs (see POP REPORT), for each date, and it's a given that grading key dates entails highter scrutiny. But if you stand back and see that PCGS does this with all the issues it grades, it's clear that, effectively, they control the size of the club and, mutatis muntandis, the coin market. Anyway, I'm playing the game. I just submitted my 1928 Very Choice Brillian Unirculated - "just a tick or two away from gem" (refer to photo in grading practice thread). Edited by Stephen420
03/08/2006 1:21 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2684 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen420
After telling you this is not "almost" and not "about uncirculated." In fact it's not any form of uncirculated and deserveds a solid 64 with just a scuff on the cheek holds back from 65 (or maybe it wouldn't in someone else's opinion). As to PCGS going beserk in their silver dollar gradings, this is scary news because I just sent three crossovers silver dollars in nGC holders One of these was a VAM and since I wanted the attribution and it's a dandy coin, I put "any grade in that I too have a PCGS registry set dream and have been sending in pretty common dates (apart from the 34-S).
I think of the coin collector's industry as a club, in otherwords, PCGS has their MS65 clubs (see POP REPORT), each in key and common dates and the fact is, grading on key dates entails highter scrutiny. But if you stand back and see that PCGS does this will all the issues it grades, it's clear that, effectively, they control the size 0f the club and, mutatis muntandis, the coin market. Anyway, I'm playing the game. I just submitted my 1928 Very Choice Brillian Unirculated - "just a tick or two away from gem (refer to photo in grading practice thread).
Stephen, when you get the coins back from PCGS, please post the results to this topic, perhaps in the same format (guess the grades, then the whole story). I will be very curious to see if PCGS is just picking on pore lil ol' me or on everyone in general.  |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,423 |
Posted 02/20/2006 11:29 am
