What is a DPL? How does it compare to pl/dmpl?
goldrealmoney79
Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
I came across this DPL designation and was very confused, It doesnt really have mirror surfaces and it seems like a PL. Can anyone shed any light on these?
I saw this 82CC, it seems kinda mirrorish on the reverse, but I dont see the deep mirrors, or ability to reflect on the observe
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1882-CC-Morgan-Dollar-NGC-MS64-DPL-Nice-Toning-Old-Fatty-Holder/223965522864?hash=item342562abb0:g:JXwAAOSw~wZehm~j
Then this 83cc has no mirrors so how can it be deep? hmmh??
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1883-CC-MORGAN-DOLLAR-NGC-MS-64-DPL-Fatty-Holder/223965524449?hash=item342562b1e1:g:dmQAAOSwMS5edVKu
I am so confused, how this designation make sense??
0
Comments
PCGS and NGC simply use different terminology to denote deep mirror prooflike surfaces.
Regarding the listings you linked - often, prooflike and deep mirror prooflike surfaces aren’t apparent in images. The coins might look very different, when tilted and rotated under a light. It’s also possible that the assigned designations might be questioned by some, even if the coins were viewed in-hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
DPL is NGC's equivalent to PCGS's DMPL. When the coins noted were encased in the fatty holder the mirror standards, were more forgiving on the depth of mirrors than coins encased today. The DPL in a fatty holder could or could not have strong mirrors. You can not tell the depth of mirrors from a typical still photo. The coins in question also have toning that could have occurred after the coins were holder that may impair what you are interpreting as mirror depth in a photo.
Wasnt the point of 3rd party grading to have standards that dont change?
"Wasnt the point of 3rd party grading to have standards that don't change?"
Welcome to reality.... In coin grading, there are NO standards, only general categories and opinions. For example the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology - formerly the NBS (National Bureau of Standards) defines and maintains standards that are measurable and repeatable. No such things exist in coin grading. We do have general categories and trained individuals who will give an opinion based on those categories...and those opinions are often disputed and the categories tend to drift (known as gradeflation)...Cheers, RickO
Both NGC and PCGS require at least 2 inches of clear reflectivity for their PL designations. Both sides.
NGC requires at least 4 inches of clear reflectivity for its DPL designation. Both sides.
PCGS requires at least 6 inches of clear reflectivity for its DMPL designation. Both sides.
That is all.
Be careful of old holders designated DMPL/DPL. Some of them wouldn't even qualify for PL designations today. When in doubt, you need to view these in hand.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Within the 'old-holder' market . . . there is nothing more suspect than the designation of any type of "prooflike" qualification. I have had many Doily "PL" and a few Doily "DMPL" that would not even be at all come to today's standards. Now . . . grading-wise . . . they may be a point better now . . . . . . . . . but as far as "prooflike" qualification to ANY degree . . . . I can't think of any Doily collector in the top 10 out there who would pay additional or consider a PL designation without seeing the coin in hand.
But . . . . those of us who are into that stuff don't freak out on PL or DMPL much anyway . . . . . .
Drunner
Yes. Changing standards/grade inflation is part of why the coin market has been in peril for the last few years.
Like messydesk said watch out for those old holders dont wanna get burnt on them
I'll echo the statements above that (deep) prooflike coins can appear very differently depending on how they're photographed. I certainly agree that the examples you showed look to really push the definition (and has been mentioned, it's possible they really don't qualify to today's standards), but I'd leave a final evaluation to in-hand.
I can provide one example. This coin is an NGC MS63DPL. The first pair of photos was taken to show the frost (two points here... first, the frost is still thicker than it shows, and second, frost isn't a requirement on PL/DMPL coins the way that mirrors are). The second pair shows the mirrors, which are a solid 12+" It can be tough to convey that depth with a slabbed coin, but certainly you can see that there are mirrors. Truth be told, though, the coin is still better in hand relative to either set of photos. This one's a blazer.
ANACS designation of UDM (ultra deep mirror) is sometimes far superior to the other guys. I recall one MS66 UDM that had mirrors with no real limit, they were at least 8-12". The coin had no frost in the fields and looked like a full proof other than the striking characteristics (interior details and edges). The only one like that I ever recall seeing.
I have hardly seen an anacs udpl . To me cameo contrast is important but I think they only do that for proofs . Some sellers are too good at doctoring pictures to look better than They are.
Here is one for you UDM and ultra frosty
.
Nice! Very nice! Thanks for the pic. I have only seen 2 on eBay. Beyond my budget though