How close to PL is this Morgan?

Collect4fun

I thought this had a chance for a PL designation. Looking at photo, is it the region near the rim at 5 o’clock on obverse that holds it back? I like the coin regardless.

MarkInDavis

It does look close to PL. Hard to tell why it isn’t from the photos.

morgansforever

I'm sure in hand it's as frosty as they come with gobs of cartwheel luster. 66? +?

1northcoin

Have you experimented to see how many inches out the mirror effect extends? It would be fun to see a photo of the mirror reflection if you could capture it in a photo.

Pnies20

Ask James Toliver from eBay to take pics of it for you and you can sell it as whatever you want!

MFeld

It could just be the photos. But, while the coin looks highly lustrous, it doesn’t look even close to PL.

ricko

Nice fields and strike, but has a long way to go for PL....IMO....Rims, little dings and scratches etc....Cheers, RickO

Hemispherical

Based on the current OP pics.

Luster, yes.

PL (proof-like), hmm...

IMO

Coinstartled

Mirrors are difficult to interpret off of digital images.

messydesk

Not being able to see the fields in person, I can only compare with other TVs of 82-CC Morgans graded PL. This one compares well to many of those from the pictures, and looks to have better mirrors than most that didn't grade PL. Another day, you might get PL.

Collect4fun

BTW, this came back as MS64. Right around where I thought but considered it had a chance for PL. thanks for the feedback.

david3142

This may be only the second time I’ve disagreed with @MFeld but that coins looks PL to me. Also, quite nice for a 64.

logger7

A coin can be nicely frosted but may not have the surface contrast to make it pl.

jmlanzaf

How close to pregnant is this woman?

ike126

If it has 3 inches of reflectivity it should PL

CoinJunkie

The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

david3142

@CoinJunkie said:
The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

Frosted devices do not factor into the PL equation like they do for Cameo proofs.

CoinJunkie

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:
The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

Frosted devices do not factor into the PL equation like they do for Cameo proofs.

OK, then what provides the contrast? Or is it strictly about the mirrors of the fields?

david3142

@CoinJunkie said:

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:
The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

Frosted devices do not factor into the PL equation like they do for Cameo proofs.

OK, then what provides the contrast? Or is it strictly about the mirrors of the fields?

It is strictly about the depth of the mirrors. Many later date PL (or even DMPL) Morgans (like 1902-O) often exhibit very little contrast.

Commencents

@Collect4fun said:
BTW, this came back as MS64. Right around where I thought but considered it had a chance for PL. thanks for the feedback.

Looks much more like a MS65 or better and has a "Semi-Proof" like appearance to me. If it's PL, the mirrors will "White Out" like a Dmpl at a certain angle to the light source. The 1880 S MS65 in the attachment should be a PL. It's almost identical to the 1880 S PL (Like a twin!) and has MS66 features imo and an expert agreed. I like these better than DMPL's! If you post a video, members here can give a better assessment. Nice coin either way.

CoinJunkie

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:
The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

Frosted devices do not factor into the PL equation like they do for Cameo proofs.

OK, then what provides the contrast? Or is it strictly about the mirrors of the fields?

It is strictly about the depth of the mirrors. Many later date PL (or even DMPL) Morgans (like 1902-O) often exhibit very little contrast.

Thanks for the education. I guess it's obvious I'm not a Morgan collector, although the PL and DMPL Morgans I've seen over the years always appeared to have some "cameo" contrast, so I assumed that was a factor in the designation.

DelawareDoons

@CoinJunkie said:

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:

@david3142 said:

@CoinJunkie said:
The lowest region of Liberty's hair appears to lack frost, but the rest of the coin looks PL or very close to it in my estimation.

Frosted devices do not factor into the PL equation like they do for Cameo proofs.

OK, then what provides the contrast? Or is it strictly about the mirrors of the fields?

It is strictly about the depth of the mirrors. Many later date PL (or even DMPL) Morgans (like 1902-O) often exhibit very little contrast.

Thanks for the education. I guess it's obvious I'm not a Morgan collector, although the PL and DMPL Morgans I've seen over the years always appeared to have some "cameo" contrast, so I assumed that was a factor in the designation.

That is a byproduct of the die burnishing methods utilized in 1898 and earlier. 1898 (die preparation methods were switched in-year) and later are often found PL/DMPL with minimal contrast.