Old DPL standard vs Modern DPL standard 1891CC
AlanSki
Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
These were considered accurate for the time period but what about with today's standards?
0
Comments
Many downgrade designation wise. I cannot comment on your coin specifically. DPL v PL is hard from images at times, but especially from those images.
I would leave it as is.
I can comment with some conviction about the Doily era . . . (not far from your NGC in timeframe).
ANY Doily that is PL or DMPL should stay exactly the way it is. ALWAYS. I am a fervent supporter of our host . . . but I just think you would be much better off . . . .
Across the street???? Not much background there . . . . . .
Drunner
From what I've read here over the years and the few older holders I've seen with DPL - standards are tighter now than they were when yours was slabbed both with the depth of mirror requirements and frost breaks.
Hard to say from the pic where yours lands but the obverse looks clean for a 63.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
I’d say no chance of DMPL and 90% shot at PL
Yes, I would leave it as is. Nice 91CC no line fatty.
100% Positive BST transactions
For selling purposes, keep it as is.... If you are only collecting and considering uniform TPG slabs... well, likely will lose the DPL....Cheers, RickO
theres nothing wrong with that. id leave it alone. jmo
if they are standards should they be changing?
IF it has over 4" of reflectivity it should be ok for today's standard. The holder looks like its in great shape.
It's one of those holders that stays in the NGC slab box and rarely comes out.