@jmski52 said:
When Canada first started producing prooflike coins (around 1965?), does anyone know how that production process differed from the US Mint's proof coin production?
Their PL coins more closely resemble the SMS coins the US produced around that time.
I have not found this to be true. To me they more closely resemble the mirror on our 20th Century proofs.
Jason how are the book sales coming? I lost track when I stopped hanging ATS
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@RogerB said:
If done, it would be a long time acknowledging a fact of coin production.
First step: Establish objective criteria and measurement procedures for "proof like." The best way is to consolidate Morgan dollar criteria and use exactly the same for all other coins. This will avoid nearly all confusion and ambiguity, while setting clear guidance for the coin industry.
(Doing this will make it difficult for sellers to cheat buyers with absurd claims and fluffy language.)
There's still a huge amount of confusion and ambiguity in the collector community differentiating the differences between a fully struck coin from a poorly struck coin aside from deciding what's lustrous verses proof-like surfaces. Yeah, RIGHT! Until they solve the strike problem in grades, a proof-like designation needs to wait. And this is coming from a guy who has a couple dozen PL coins and I haven't been holding my breath on this one. meh
Sorry,
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
The detail visible on a new coin ("strike") is a function of different conditions than those which create a "proof-like" appearance. Thus, the two and not dependent and cannot be linked.
@Realone said:
I sure hope they don't. It is unnecessary imho. Soon we will all be wanting 50% PL, or Pl obverse only , or near PL. You got business strike designation and proof designation, it is obvious when a coins surface are PL, some are and some aren't. I can't wait until the time comes to designations for a Bill Reuker designation "Just a tad close" to PL.
Then might as well get rid of the RD, RB, and BN designations as collectors can tell what level redness or brownness copper is without any TPGS telling them on a label.
Color with coppers has always been difficult for me to deal with. At one time PCGS would not grade coppers cameo unless they were full red. That leaves many early Lincolns and most Indians without cameo designation. And buyer beware of high grade cameo Lincolns marked RED unless they are in new plastic because they likely cannot be reholdered and color is only guaranteed for 10 years at NGC. I will only buy my '36 Brilliant Lincoln in RB or BN because there are many if not most RED holdered coins that have turned in their holder and dealers will just move them and let you get pinched.
@messydesk said:
For establishing standards for PL-ness, it seems that this is most easily done on the Barber, Longacre, and earlier coinage, as it is most similar to Morgan dollars, with a flat, easily polished field that is unrelated to the devices. By contrast, Buffalo Nickels would seem the most difficult to define, with fields that, if reflective, aren't easily measured.
PL Buffalos are extremely rare - but if you've ever seen one, you know that the mirrors are unquestionable. There are only a couple certified, but they stand apart from the rest of the herd in a way that is unmistakable. The same could be said for many series with textured or highly curved fields.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
@messydesk said:
For establishing standards for PL-ness, it seems that this is most easily done on the Barber, Longacre, and earlier coinage, as it is most similar to Morgan dollars, with a flat, easily polished field that is unrelated to the devices. By contrast, Buffalo Nickels would seem the most difficult to define, with fields that, if reflective, aren't easily measured.
PL Buffalos are extremely rare - but if you've ever seen one, you know that the mirrors are unquestionable. There are only a couple certified, but they stand apart from the rest of the herd in a way that is unmistakable. The same could be said for many series with textured or highly curved fields.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
@messydesk said:
For establishing standards for PL-ness, it seems that this is most easily done on the Barber, Longacre, and earlier coinage, as it is most similar to Morgan dollars, with a flat, easily polished field that is unrelated to the devices. By contrast, Buffalo Nickels would seem the most difficult to define, with fields that, if reflective, aren't easily measured.
PL Buffalos are extremely rare - but if you've ever seen one, you know that the mirrors are unquestionable. There are only a couple certified, but they stand apart from the rest of the herd in a way that is unmistakable. The same could be said for many series with textured or highly curved fields.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
The 37-D MS PL from ATS?
Not sure what "ATS" means, but yes it is a 37-D. It is NGC MS63 PL.
@messydesk said:
For establishing standards for PL-ness, it seems that this is most easily done on the Barber, Longacre, and earlier coinage, as it is most similar to Morgan dollars, with a flat, easily polished field that is unrelated to the devices. By contrast, Buffalo Nickels would seem the most difficult to define, with fields that, if reflective, aren't easily measured.
PL Buffalos are extremely rare - but if you've ever seen one, you know that the mirrors are unquestionable. There are only a couple certified, but they stand apart from the rest of the herd in a way that is unmistakable. The same could be said for many series with textured or highly curved fields.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
The 37-D MS PL from ATS?
Not sure what "ATS" means, but yes it is a 37-D. It is NGC MS63 PL.
ATS = Across the street
There was a thread on the coin on the NGC Forums. It is a fascinating coin.
@RogerB said:
The detail visible on a new coin ("strike") is a function of different conditions than those which create a "proof-like" appearance. Thus, the two and not dependent and cannot be linked.
They can if the same eyeballs are looking at them both.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Has there been any official announcement? What would be the process to have PL coins in other holders crossed over to PCGS and evaluated for the designation?
Has there been any official announcement? What would be the process to have PL coins in other holders crossed over to PCGS and evaluated for the designation?
@Hemispherical I got the impression only select moderns, not entire series. For example I can't expect a PL on my 87-D Lincoln if submitted even though it clearly is. Although I hope I'm wrong here.
Bold added by me.
@BrettPCGS said:
PCGS has graded modern coins as PL at their discretion over the last decade, notably the 2009 UHRs and 2014s Anniversary set silver. This year the mint is producing some modern products that are clearly PL, and we are grading them as such.
There is no change in SOP in grading these coins. Thanks
@messydesk said:
For establishing standards for PL-ness, it seems that this is most easily done on the Barber, Longacre, and earlier coinage, as it is most similar to Morgan dollars, with a flat, easily polished field that is unrelated to the devices. By contrast, Buffalo Nickels would seem the most difficult to define, with fields that, if reflective, aren't easily measured.
PL Buffalos are extremely rare - but if you've ever seen one, you know that the mirrors are unquestionable. There are only a couple certified, but they stand apart from the rest of the herd in a way that is unmistakable. The same could be said for many series with textured or highly curved fields.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
I have two, a 1937-D and a 1938-D, with fully proof like obverses. The reverses of both are only semi-PL, tho. They are indeed very tough to find.
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Here is a PL 1937-d buffalo nickel now being offered on eBay for the miserly sum of $12,100 in PL-63, with best offer being accepted. Buy the way, since NGC already does this no need for pcgs to follow suit IMO.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
That's a matter of opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
That's a matter of opinion.
Which point is arguable? The third? How does it hurt non-PL coins to have other coins designated PL? I suppose if you have something you think is PL you will have a harder time selling it as such without the designation.
Obviously there is work for PCGS to make this happen but I really don’t see how it is not strictly beneficial to collectors. You haven’t provided any argument to the contrary, just inertial reasoning.
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
That's a matter of opinion.
Which point is arguable? The third? How does it hurt non-PL coins to have other coins designated PL? I suppose if you have something you think is PL you will have a harder time selling it as such without the designation.
Obviously there is work for PCGS to make this happen but I really don’t see how it is not strictly beneficial to collectors. You haven’t provided any argument to the contrary, just inertial reasoning.
I simply can't be bothered arguing. I provided my view in my earlier post. Again, it's strictly a matter of opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@BUFFNIXX said:
Buy the way, since NGC already does this no need for pcgs to follow suit IMO.
There are collectors and dealers that are "PCGS" only and some dealers will not regularly accept NGC coins for consignment. So I do think expansion to all regular U.S. coins would help sellers of PL coins.
@ms70 said:
I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
We only have cam/dcam designations because Tomaska lobbied for them. You could make the same argument for every other designation offered including color, strike, etc.
There are always suggestions for new 'qualifications' to be added to coin evaluations.... The real need is for developing true standards for grading... that will be the biggest contribution to the hobby since the introduction of TPG's....Hopefully, as AI is developed further, the cost of such innovation will be reduced. Change grading from opinion to fact... What a concept... Cheers, RickO
@ms70 said:
I completely disagree. It's so unnecessary. I have two eyes and the ability to form my own opinion. I wouldn't even want a PL designation on my coins.
Do you object to the designation for Morgan dollars? Do you feel the same way about other designations or even grades? I fail to see how there’s any difference.
Every objection raised in this thread has been solved from a grading perspective by PCGS for Morgans (and a few others) and NGC for all types. I fully understand PCGS would also have to update their numbering system, registry, etc. That may not be easy for them, and they may have higher priority changes but they could certainly grade deserving PL coins tomorrow if they wanted.
If this already existed, would people try to take it away? I have never heard anyone say that Morgans should not be designated PL or DMPL if deserving, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that NGC restrict their designations to fewer series. What I see here is nothing more than inertial reasoning.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
It might benefit collectors of PL coins who are sellers. At the same time it might hurt collectors of PL coins who are buyers. And my guess is that the latter would occur far more frequently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I assume we can agree that the label should increase the price, so individual transactions will get more expensive. However,
there is a buyer for every seller and increased prices of PL-coin holdings seems by definition an overall benefit since the market is long-only. I agree that allocating this benefit may not be as obvious as I made it. You are correct that cherry-picking PLs will become harder.
I assume we can agree that the label should increase the price, so individual transactions will get more expensive. However,
there is a buyer for every seller and increased prices of PL-coin holdings seems by definition an overall benefit since the market is long-only. I agree that allocating this benefit may not be as obvious as I made it. You are correct that cherry-picking PLs will become harder.
I don't necessarily see increased prices as a benefit, overall.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sitting here looking at my pcgs recently graded proof like Kennedy half. Dime nickel penny heck even ams63 planchet and wondering what the heck your talking about they are grading them as we speak 🙀jzyskowski of course the planchet isn’t a pl but an example of open minded grading
@Jzyskowski1 said:
Sitting here looking at my pcgs recently graded proof like Kennedy half. Dime nickel penny heck even ams63 planchet and wondering what the heck your talking about they are grading them as we speak 🙀jzyskowski of course the planchet isn’t a pl but an example of open minded grading
PCGS started doing 2019 PL coinage earlier this year, but until then it had only designated certain moderns (5 oz ATB pucks and 2009 UHR gold) and Morgan Dollars as PL/DMPL.
Comments
I have not found this to be true. To me they more closely resemble the mirror on our 20th Century proofs.
Jason how are the book sales coming? I lost track when I stopped hanging ATS
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
There's still a huge amount of confusion and ambiguity in the collector community differentiating the differences between a fully struck coin from a poorly struck coin aside from deciding what's lustrous verses proof-like surfaces. Yeah, RIGHT! Until they solve the strike problem in grades, a proof-like designation needs to wait. And this is coming from a guy who has a couple dozen PL coins and I haven't been holding my breath on this one. meh
Sorry,
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
If this is considered, please also include tokens and medals like So-Called Dollars.
The detail visible on a new coin ("strike") is a function of different conditions than those which create a "proof-like" appearance. Thus, the two and not dependent and cannot be linked.
big boost to re-submission numbers
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Color with coppers has always been difficult for me to deal with. At one time PCGS would not grade coppers cameo unless they were full red. That leaves many early Lincolns and most Indians without cameo designation. And buyer beware of high grade cameo Lincolns marked RED unless they are in new plastic because they likely cannot be reholdered and color is only guaranteed for 10 years at NGC. I will only buy my '36 Brilliant Lincoln in RB or BN because there are many if not most RED holdered coins that have turned in their holder and dealers will just move them and let you get pinched.
I have only ever seen one true PL Buffalo Nickel. I actually lost an auction on it when it was in a star-designated holder. Two years later I see it in a PL holder. It is unquestionably a PL. It is almost similar, but more rare than a Cameo designated Walking Liberty half dollar.
The 37-D MS PL from ATS?
Not sure what "ATS" means, but yes it is a 37-D. It is NGC MS63 PL.
ATS = Across the street
There was a thread on the coin on the NGC Forums. It is a fascinating coin.
They can if the same eyeballs are looking at them both.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Looks like our host has started to designate other coins as PL. So far, cents and halves.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/2019-d-1c-shield-pl/722799
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/2019-d-50c-rocketship-set-pl/704876
@Hemispherical, Thanks for the update.
Has there been any official announcement? What would be the process to have PL coins in other holders crossed over to PCGS and evaluated for the designation?
Reply by Brett in this thread.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1018520/pl-prooflike-designation-added-to-our-recent-modern-submission
@Hemispherical I got the impression only select moderns, not entire series. For example I can't expect a PL on my 87-D Lincoln if submitted even though it clearly is. Although I hope I'm wrong here.
Bold added by me.
Collector, occasional seller
I have two, a 1937-D and a 1938-D, with fully proof like obverses. The reverses of both are only semi-PL, tho. They are indeed very tough to find.
I do not object to the long-time standards that have been set in place by PCGS and would not advocate eliminating the existing standards for the coins currently receiving PL designations. I don't believe in upsetting the apple cart for long established collections and collectors which is exactly what some here want to do. I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this would have a wide spread benefit to the hobby as opposed to benefiting just a few with personal special interests.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Here is a PL 1937-d buffalo nickel now being offered on eBay for the miserly sum of $12,100 in PL-63, with best offer being accepted. Buy the way, since NGC already does this no need for pcgs to follow suit IMO.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It benefits collectors of PL coinage. It benefits PCGS as they will likely get resubmissions and crossovers. It does 0 harm to any other collectors.
That's a matter of opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Which point is arguable? The third? How does it hurt non-PL coins to have other coins designated PL? I suppose if you have something you think is PL you will have a harder time selling it as such without the designation.
Obviously there is work for PCGS to make this happen but I really don’t see how it is not strictly beneficial to collectors. You haven’t provided any argument to the contrary, just inertial reasoning.
I simply can't be bothered arguing. I provided my view in my earlier post. Again, it's strictly a matter of opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
There are collectors and dealers that are "PCGS" only and some dealers will not regularly accept NGC coins for consignment. So I do think expansion to all regular U.S. coins would help sellers of PL coins.
We only have cam/dcam designations because Tomaska lobbied for them. You could make the same argument for every other designation offered including color, strike, etc.
There are always suggestions for new 'qualifications' to be added to coin evaluations.... The real need is for developing true standards for grading... that will be the biggest contribution to the hobby since the introduction of TPG's....Hopefully, as AI is developed further, the cost of such innovation will be reduced. Change grading from opinion to fact... What a concept...
Cheers, RickO
It might benefit collectors of PL coins who are sellers. At the same time it might hurt collectors of PL coins who are buyers. And my guess is that the latter would occur far more frequently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld
I assume we can agree that the label should increase the price, so individual transactions will get more expensive. However,
there is a buyer for every seller and increased prices of PL-coin holdings seems by definition an overall benefit since the market is long-only. I agree that allocating this benefit may not be as obvious as I made it. You are correct that cherry-picking PLs will become harder.
I don't necessarily see increased prices as a benefit, overall.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
NGC also grades authenticates and slabs coins so PCGS should just close down the shop altogether :rollseyes:
congrats, after 75 million you get your wish starting July 1\
https://pcgs.com/news/collectors-universe-reaches-historic-milestone-certifying-75-million-collectibles/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=marketingemail&utm_campaign=email-pcgs-75millioncertified-2019jun19&spMailingID=59680023&spUserID=MzY3MzkyNDMxMDgS1&spJobID=1662844478&spReportId=MTY2Mjg0NDQ3OAS2
It's here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1021521/pcgs-expanding-prooflike-pl-designation-to-all-us-world-coin-series
Hip hip 😁
Sitting here looking at my pcgs recently graded proof like Kennedy half. Dime nickel penny heck even ams63 planchet and wondering what the heck your talking about they are grading them as we speak 🙀jzyskowski of course the planchet isn’t a pl but an example of open minded grading
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
PCGS started doing 2019 PL coinage earlier this year, but until then it had only designated certain moderns (5 oz ATB pucks and 2009 UHR gold) and Morgan Dollars as PL/DMPL.
That's awesome! Finally.