NGC Open Box - Off-Brand (NCI) MS65 Crackouts, and...Is This Error Real?

1879-S (002): www.oldpuebloc...
1879-S (001): www.oldpuebloc...
1879-S (003): www.oldpuebloc...
1880-S (005): www.oldpuebloc...
1880-S (004): www.oldpuebloc...
1881-S (007): www.oldpuebloc...
1881-S (006): www.oldpuebloc...
1882-S (009): www.oldpuebloc...
1882-S (008): www.oldpuebloc...
Wisconsin: sold
Woods Hibernia: sold
Thanks for watching.
Please comment, share, like and subscribe.
See some of our inventory:
Website Inventory: www.oldpuebloc...
eBay store: www.ebay.com/s...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
www.youtube.co...
Follow us:
www.mycollect....
/ thecoingeek
www.mycollect....
/ oldpueblocoin
Ben The Coin Geek
Old Pueblo Coin

[@swilliams937]

The only good thing about that questionable grading is that it provides the savvy collector an opportunity to cherry pick in those 63 and 64 grades without paying 65 prices.

[@donaldinnewmexico]

Hi, Ben. One out of the eight Morgans gets the 65 designation and it is the one with a fingerprint. I would downgrade it to a 64 because of the fingerprint.

[@sandiahead]

Nice dead milkmen reference sir. Impressive.

[@originalatogscoins]

The nickel looks like it was struck through a "Capped Die". Its possible it could be damaged, but that would be hard to duplicate.

[@signofthestigmata]

Thanks, Ben!

[@singlesideman]

It is my understanding that a grade for a given coin series is what it is, and not dependent on how many are struck well during a particular year from a particular mint, or what grade populations happen to be, and that populations of coins in particular grades from particular mints during particular years are just that, populations, which ultimately affect values, not that grading companies are any "tougher" on particular coins minted at particular mints during particular years. A Morgan in MS63 is a Morgan in MS63, even though there may be more or fewer of them in any particular grade than in other grades and from other years and/or from other mints.

[@samwazhere559]

That is the traditional grading standard from the ANA and also seems to align closely with ANACS overall grading strategy. PCGS and NGC use market grading, which is based off what is acceptable in the market. Using your example an MS63 Morgan is still and MS63 Morgan, but there is almost a 100% chance that a 1904-O in 63 has a noticeably worse strike than a 1904 in 63.

[@samwazhere559]

Or the old adage of a 65 1881-S being a 67 if it had any other date. It may not be how you buy, how you grade your raw coins or how you'd like it done, but that that is the modern standard for the top tier grading companies. Understanding issues surrounding the mintage of specific branch mints and years within a series is important to actually be able to grade.

[@singlesideman]

@@samwazhere559 I'm aware of these coins' different populations which affects their values, but as I said, there are certain grading criteria which are universal to a given coin series, and strike quality is a separate issue. A weakly struck coin of a specific grade from a specific year and mint will still have certain attributes that are found in strongly struck examples from different years and different mints, even if the strongly struck coin looks nicer and more lustrous and more detailed than one that's weakly struck but of the same grade. I still haven't really seen grading companies being harder on these coins that are more frequently strongly struck with more detail and with nicely lustrous fields. I have a PCGS graded 1881-S Morgan Dollar in MS66 and it looks great, no question, and there are tons of these out there, no question, but when I look at it I don't say to myself that it looks like a MS67 1888-O. In other words, the grading seems to reflect what the coin started out with - the grades appear to me to be based on hits and luster rather than how much detail was struck into the coin in the first place, and it seems to me that this more accurately represents the concept of grade, which is a measure of wear to a coin with a dash of eye appeal thrown in. That's my impression, anyway. Maybe the third party grading services used to be harder on coins than were commonly strongly struck, but I just haven't seen it. I've got a really cool 1810 Capped Bust Half that has a really primitive strike where the beading on the edge is almost nonexistent at one part of the edge and it's a really fascinating looking coin, especially for getting a sense of how it was struck, but you can tell that it's a pretty high grade, and it is, an XF40. You wouldn't expect part of the beading along the edge of a coin to be almost nonexistent in an XF40, but you can tell that the grade is right because you can see the detail elsewhere, and you realize that the grade is really reflecting how much wear there is to the coin, not how much detail was originally struck into the coin and where.

[@singlesideman]

@@samwazhere559 that basically echoes what I said - two different Morgans, for example, of different strikes can have the same grade but look different because of the strike, which doesn't mean that the grading services - even PCGS and NGC - are being any tougher on coins that are much more commonly seen with stronger strikes - they're still being graded mostly on wear, hits and luster, with a dash of eye appeal, not on strike quality. At least that's what I've seen. I got into more detail with my other reply.

[@rasbobbo]

Stick an owl on ‘em.

[@tarheelriever2609]

Shoulda kept the NCI slabs. I mean great there’s more NGC MS Morgans…

[@weststephan5253]

As a grader myself, sometimes you are between 2 grades. What I do is imagine what it will look like in the plastic slab and see if that sways me up or down. Also, if you are between grades sometimes as you are putting them back you get a last look that can sway you. Perhaps you see something at a different angle as you are moving on and it makes an impact.

[@kole9587]

What company do you work for?

[@kaynefryday6637]

Interesting video 👍

[@donnywolf9250]

Thanks Ben

[@DanielHughes-rf2yf]

I think they dropped the ball on the nickel. That looks like an error to me.

[@cgcoins3639]

Hey Ben! One thing I've been curious about... when you have a raw coin or ones in NCI holders, how do you decide which grading company to send them to? After watching many videos it seems like you submit to PCGS and NGC about equally!

[@Ant2242]

Definitely post mint damage. That looks like someone took a buffer to it until it kind of looked like it was a struck through die cap.

[@mattmcrae1458]

Odd they chose that one as a 65. Several seemed quite a bit nicer.

[@danm2173]

Man that 007 Morgan is a 64 all day. I've enjoyed watching your videos for the last couple of months but didn't Subscribe until today after the "Cheese Curd" comment & I actually LOLed

[@robertscagnelli1011]

Thank you Ben!

[@silverdrillpickle7596]

Nickel error looks legit to me

[@rdoubled1384]

I agree with all of the NGC grades, I don't think Ben understands the NGC and PCGS grading standards. The only exception is the 82-S which would get at 64 at PCGS.

[@PRS-qh5jf]

I've grown to really like the gentle mottled color that some coins have. In particular I like it on mercury dimes.

[@warrenmullett]

I understand grading on a curve for poorly minted coins, or newly minted collectible coins. But this is new to me.. very enjoyable coins. Might be a good lot to keep/sell together! 😊

[@lestercoons3962]

Screwed! That's the word you're looking for...You have some beautiful dollars!

[@667hodge]

NCI was formed around 1984 by Ivy and Jim Halperin,who also formed Heritage Auctions.NCI pre graded coins for Heritage.Apparently their graders were quite liberal with their grades.When PCGS started up,NCI closed down shortly thereafter.There was some references to a court hearing between the 3 about similarities in their slabs.TPGing manipulation continues today

[@SatelliteEngineer]

I think you did very well on those Morgans compared to the ones I recently got back from PCGS.

[@silvadelshaladin]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to send an error coin like that to anacs? It isn't like you are really looking for a grade, just validation, or do people pay that significantly more for a grease error nickel certified by NGC than anacs?

[@louissicajr]

For me and you sure. But for a dealer like Ben who has to make a profit to keep the lights on and afford to buy his kids a GI-Joe with a Kung Fu grip (80s movies 😉) and the high tech KZbin graphics he uses (jk Ben we love you 😉) ANACS coins just aren't going to sell as well or for as much than an NGC or PCGS one. That might not be fair, that might not even be right, but for better or worse it just is

[@don951]

That was a customers coin. If you are already sending in a number of coins than it might end up being cheaper or the same to just include with that order. Sending just one coin to ANACS gets expensive without any benefit.

[@silvadelshaladin]

@@louissicajr Trading Places eh? And which grading company shouldn't matter on an error coin. It isn't like you aren't trusting anacs to split 64s from 65s.

[@zzyzxRDFwy15]

Ben, you should come up with an adjustable date for a Morgan Dollar so a coin geek would only need to buy your one Morgan to collect them all.

[@louissicajr]

Hmmmmmm....I see 4s and even 5s on those Morgans. Even for coins in that 79 to 82 S uber-common date run. Maybe both of us are too focused on "clean cheek" instead of the fields? Has the defintion and even importance of "Prime Focal Areas" (a term right from the ANA Grading Guide!) changed at the TPGs and no one told anyone? 😉

[@don951]

Not 65's, but still a great lot of coins. No DETAILS so you can't get mad about that. Cheers!

[@wi.dave3812]

Great video, I’ll be looking for that Wisconsin coin somewhere

[@borisperez3129]

I’ve got a stunning Kennedy, nothing fancy just a 64 p but, the back is got a rainbow 🌈 that makes me drool 🤤 the front is not quite frost white but close . What to do with that eye candy? I’ve got hundreds of em and this one is just unique but only to me. Will it grade? Am honestly asking for guidance in this issue, afraid of artificial toning shayt on the grades, I know it’s an album toner.

[@jameskerry3826]

Thumb's up. Q: Ben, when you sent them in to NGC, did you crack them out, or had NGC crack them out? And w/PCGS, do you have the same crack-out decision as w/NGC, even though PCGS will allow a grading w/o necessarily cracking them out, unlike NGC? Thank you.

[@singlesideman]

The word you're looking for is 'ambivalence', which means being of two minds, not 'duplicitous', which means two-faced. You're not two-faced - at least I hope not!

[@johnilardi]

Not for nothing and I'm far from expert I have a few 79s Morgan MS 64 one is obviously nicer than the other as well as two pcgs 1883 Morgan MS 64 and one is obviously better than the other, really wondering how pcgs comes up with some of the grades, thanks for all the videos

[@platinumskies7968]

Very harsh I think the previous grading company was more accurate calling them all 65s

[@morgansinner]

Ben, do you think one should gently dap with acetone (using a Q-Tip) Morgan's that have Peach fuzz / dirt,etc before submitting ? Remove it, basically. It's only noticeable under magnification.

[@williamguirl7735]

Like #4

[@richardbillin5190]

Coin Grading would be a good candidate for AI that way take out human error

[@MakeNumismaticsGreatAgain]

These results are ridiculous. 10 years ago NGC would have called most of these MS66. CAC has really shaken things up for everyone. Grades that we've been trained to know are completely changed. And what's worse, it will probably change again in our lifetime.

[@coloradocoinhunter6475]

Almost looks like a cap die

[@JASN-oj5qu]

Really undergraded lot. i just bought the 82S 64

[@bl7121]

Man talk about inconsistent grading. From the looks of those coins what does it take to get a 66? I mean they all looked 65 at a minimum. NGC is way off these days. Take it from someone who knows.

[@donaldinnewmexico]

HA! 😝

[@smar5812]

Phony grading company

[@donaldinnewmexico]

*FIRST*

[@don951]

Nice! For a minute I thought you were losing your touch.