| Author |
 Replies: 46 / Views: 6,306 |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
OK, here we go. I'm going to throw two Morgans at you. The first was provided by vermontensium, and the second is my avatar coin. I believe vermontensium's coin is a slam-dunk for the P01 example in CCF's Morgan dollar Grading Set, but my own may be closer to FR2. Comments?     |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1418 Posts |
The first one is definitely PO1, and I agree with FR2 for the second one.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I think the first one is a No grade because the date is to hard to see. My low ball 1878 looks like yours on the Obverse and almost like the first one on the Reverse
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I think the first one is a No grade because the date is to hard to see That's a point I hoped to see raised - is there a state of wear that's ungradable just because it's so worn? Although it's difficult, you can still make the date out on this coin, but no mint mark, if present. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I think PCGS said that the date had to be clearly visible to be graded and not sure this one would make that requirement. Its definitely in Po01 condition but I just don't think it would grade as such. Edit: I went back to the thread posted on here about the PO01 that sold for more than a MS-63 at the fun show on PCGSblog.com and this is what they say Quote:
At PCGS, a coin assigned a grade of Poor 1 is a coin that has most of the design and date missing due to excessive wear from circulation. However, in most cases the coin has to be identifiable by its date, mint mark and type before PCGS assigns it a grade of Poor 1.
Perhaps coins in grades of Poor 1 are much more desirable because they circulated heavily, and therefore have much more historical significance. Or, it can be because this is the lowest grade possible and it's really hard to find a coin in this one specific grade. Is it because it takes just a bit more wear before it becomes un-greadable. Or, is it because of the Set Registry and several collectors want to compete in Low Ball sets? Or it may be because collecting Low Ball coins is really fun. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Susan Headley states the same thing at about.com - the mint mark must be identifiable for P01. It seems that vermontensium's coin ends up "Basal State - Ungradable" but let's await more opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2448 Posts |
These are straight from the PCGS Glossary: Quote:PO-1 This is for "Poor" (the grade) and "1" (the numerical designation that means Poor). A coin of this grade is basically uncollectible due to its terrible condition, but coins of great rarity (such as an 1802 Half Dime) are still of considerable value and in demand in this grade. In order to "reach" this grade a coin must be identifiable as to date and type and not be horribly damaged (such as holes). Quote:
Poor
The grade PO-1. A coin with readable date and mint mark (if present), but little more, barely identifiable as to type. (One-year type coins do not require a readable date to qualify for this grade.)
See Also -- PO-1 However, if you go to their on-line Photo-Grade, their PO-1 example does not have a " identifiable" date or mint mark. I agree with you that vermontensium's coin definately meets the Po01 criteria, but I bet you "dollars and donuts" PCGS won't grade it that way. They'll probably say it has unidentifiable damage. I feel your coin is a shoe-in for FR-2. |
|
Valued Member
United States
156 Posts |
It seems to me that the Morgan design, as it wears, would go straight from FR-2 to Basal State - Ungradable, due to the location of the date and, even more so, the mint mark. Any Morgan with the details worn beyond FR-2 would have only a chance of having even a shadow of a date or mint mark, and would usually need both to complete identification.
I suspect that the best example of a true PO-1 Morgan would be one without an identifiable date or mint mark, but still identifiable because of the variety...an 1888 O "Hot Lips."
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
Yours IMO Super, would in fact grade FR02 at PCGS/NGC. On your example, the reverse legends are visible, but too worn into the rim to merit an AG03. According to PCGS's grading standards for Morgans, LIBERTY is still visible on FR02's! I do believe mine is a PO1 and just to let you know, I purchased it here at the sell forum, I can't remember who though. He deserves the real credit ;-) Check this out: http://www.pcgs.com/photograde/#/Morgan/Gradesswcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The only relevant photos I've found between Heritage and the PCGS Registry of P01's have all had visible mint marks.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1418 Posts |
The one on Photograde doesn't.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Great examples. It looks like the top one is an 1887, but have no clue on the mm. If the mm is as undiscernable in hand, then I would agree with "No Grade". I think a "No Grade" morgan example would fit well into the grading set placed before a PO1. It would be cool if you could just get PCGS to slab it "Genuine Morgan dollar" with no date or grade on it...  Edited by johnny54321
01/17/2011 7:58 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1418 Posts |
johnny, what makes you say no grade, when photograde doesn't have a visible mm either?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
952 Posts |
That first one is def PR-1....and I think the lowest grade morgan I've ever seen
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
I might just send it to PCGS. I have been debating that. I just renewed my Collectors Club membership. It would be pretty cool to see "PCGS P01" on the holder!
swcoin.ecrater.com
Edited by vermontensium
01/17/2011 9:26 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
I wouldn't call anything poor unless most of the front were obliterated too...
|
| |
Replies: 46 / Views: 6,306 |
Posted 01/17/2011 11:41 am
