| Author |
 Replies: 46 / Views: 6,309 |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
johnny, what makes you say no grade, when photograde doesn't have a visible mm either? My thoughts were that if you can't tell what year and mm the coin is, then it's hard to give it a grade unless you just call it "Morgan $1 PO1". All the P01s I've seen also have the year/mm as well but I don't peruse lowball coins much other than dateless 16 quarters(they dont need a date to be identified by year). It is quite possible they exist and I'm just not aware.  Does anyone here have a picture example of a non-error coin that is graded PO1 and only identified by type? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
763 Posts |
I would agree that a date and mint mark have to be identifiable in order for a P01 grade to be assigned.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2448 Posts |
I hope you'll keep us appraised of the result.
|
|
Moderator
  United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I hope you'll keep us appraised of the result.
That's a point, and thank you for raising it. We are deciding the result, not me. I'm hoping for broader input into future Grading Set postings - I suspect people are more comfortable judging between VF and EF than P01 and AG3.  But we're going to make this choice. At the end of this process, I'll be posting the whole set as a poll, to ensure we like what we've done. Now. Remember, I mentioned at the beginning of all this that we were going to adhere to strict ANA grading standards for this, not market standards. Part of the page where we present these will address the difference between ANA grading and market grading. As near as I can tell (I don't own the official book, please correct me if I'm wrong), ANA standards do not include FR2 or P01. Can someone confirm or disprove my belief, before I move on to the next question? |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Just for a bit of evidence.... Below are images of two PCGS FR2's I ripped from ebay.     Something to keep in mind, which always applies to grading - the "worst" side carries the grade. You don't take an "average." |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Here is the only Heritage example of a PR01 Morgan that I could find. http://coins.ha.com/common/view_ite...=22290#Photo  What is interesting about this coin is that it is completely obliterated even more so than vermontensium's example. However, the date and mintmark area are still just barely clear enough to be identified. I think it may a rare occurrence to find a morgan at this level of wear and still be able to tell the date mm, which may explain why they are tough to find slabbed PR1? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2669 Posts |
ANA Grading Standards: Quote:
Poor-1: Only the basic coin type is identifiable. Date and mintmark must be strong enough to be readable. Entire surface is worn and may be disfigured by numerous blemishes.
Fair 2: Most of the design details are worn completely smooth. Much of the legend and date are merged into the field. Rims are flat or missing. May have serious nicks, dents, and defects. (Sixth Edition)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2669 Posts |
By the way, they do not have pictures of either grade - only down to AG3.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
on the ipod/iphone ap from PCGS "photograde" it shows a PO01 that is almost slick but I bet if that coin was cracked out and resent in it wouldn't grade because you can not see the date or MM on that coin and the Fr02 is in so much better shape its amazing the one they show could have been graded at all. You can just barely see the Morgan head and just barely the eagle on the Reverse but definitely no date or MM in the picture they show. The PO01 Seated Half they show has a date and MM visible
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1418 Posts |
That is what I have been saying. Photograde has a PO1 with no date/MM, so this qualifies.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
That is what I have been saying. Photograde has a PO1 with no date/MM, so this qualifies. We see what your seeing tumbleweed. Our point is that this contradicts the actual PCGS definition of Poor, as Bryan and Xshift pointed out. Also, no one has posted evidence of a PCGS PO-01 that lacks a date/mm(I'm not saying they dont exist, I just havent seen any). In response to the photograde example, I question whether or not PCGS actually slabbed that as an actual poor, or are just stating that it has the overall appearance of a poor.  |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
That's it! I'm going to carry as a pocket piece everyday for 10 years. Then PCGS will grade APO01 (About Poor 1)
:-)
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
That's it! I'm going to carry as a pocket piece everyday for 10 years. Then PCGS will grade APO01 (About Poor 1)
:-)  It'd be great if it was so worn all they could do is slab it "Genuine US Silver Dollar" |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I'm going to say this again. It's the only binding rule I'm imposing on the whole process. Quote:Remember, I mentioned at the beginning of all this that we were going to adhere to strict ANA grading standards for this, not market standards. Per xshift's quote, P01 must include a readable date and mint mark. Vermontensium's coin will therefore become the "Basal State, Ungradable" bottom of the Grading Set. I'm leaning towards thinking FR-2 for mine. |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
I will probably submit to PCGS at the Long Beach Coin Expo. I think it has a good shot at PO1. It has a barely readable date and IMO, meets the criteria for that grade based on the two FR2 examples posted. I know it's a gamble but I am willing to throw some $ down.
I don't think it's ungradable personally.
Thanks for this thread Super ;-)
swcoin.ecrater.com
Edited by vermontensium
01/21/2011 02:56 am
|
| |
Replies: 46 / Views: 6,309 |
First Page
Posted 01/18/2011 11:36 am
