Options
DMPL Morgans - evaluating pics
ShaunBC5
Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’ve been looking online for an MS65DMPL Morgan because I don’t have an LCS closer than 3hrs drive.
Most of the pics are uninspiring to say the least. I’m no photographer and can understand the difficulty capturing something so reflective (through reflective plastic).
My question to you experts: do any MS65DMPLs not look great? Do you have a pic of one that looks great in hand (whether the pic is good or not)?
Thanks!
0
Comments
DMPL is based on the depth of the mirrors. Some coins will just make it and some will have much deeper mirrors. Just the same, some will have a bit of frost and some will have a ton of frost. Lighting can easily make a coin look much frostier than it is, and to some level it’s tough to portray mirrors—even good ones—in a meaningful way in photos. Assuming no intentional trickery, a coin whose photos show black fields and thickly frosted devices will probably be a nice coin in the DMPL scale, but nothing is totally guaranteed. This is definitely an area where there is lots of variability and a trustworthy dealer (even if online) can help you out.
A lot of them don’t look great, much less, convincing as DPL’s. As is the case with most other coins, I’d advise against buying sight-unseen, unless it’s from a well established seller, who offers a full return privilege or you can have someone view it in hand for you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is an area that I would always advise in hand appraisal prior to buying....Or, as Mark said, a very well established, reliable seller. A very desirable Morgan indeed. Cheers, RickO
I'd talk to @blu62vette, he's the straightest shooter out there RE DMPLs, and might have what you're looking for or can find it.
CAC means nothing for PL/DMPL imho. They want a certain look, I want depth of mirrors and contrast.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thanks, everybody.
I’ll exercise some more patience on this one. I was trying to learn online and am struggling a bit with it.
I have one PL that I bought in person and really enjoy. I’ve never posted a pic because they all look like junk.
Thanks for all your suggestions.
Tough to convey in photos, and most look rather beat up as the field marks are accentuated by the mirrors.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Most pictures do not show DMPL Morgan’s in a positive way. It’s very hard to get a good feeling for the coin with just pictures.
Some MS65 DMPL do not look great as the standard in the older NGC and PCGS holders are not consistent.
Here are a couple of my favorites:
Below is a MS64 DMPL with a CAC sticker
Below is a MS63 PL that looks DMPL that toned in a fatty and a CAC sticker
I would not buy a DMPL in an old holder unless I was able to view the coin in hand or I was able to return. The standards have changed and a lot of DMPL coins in older holders would not be DMPL by today’s standards.
This 85-O DMPL in hand is showing ultra deep mirrors with frosty coated devices. Todd of BluCC Photography took two shots of it with different lighting angles so I could see differences in the coin.
As Airplanenut said " Assuming no intentional trickery, a coin whose photos show black fields and thickly frosted devices will probably be a nice coin in the DMPL scale".
I have been buying DMPL's from Great Collections and their photography is spot on when showing the black and white contrasting surfaces with the DMPL's.
Yeah, old holders are dangerous when it comes to DMPL and PL.
My gut feeling and staying tightened up the standards around 2001 to 2002? I was not collecting at that time so that is mostly based on what I've seen in holders and the era of those holders.
I have seen DMPLs in OGHs that would not even be PL today.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I sold most of my DMPL’s that I purchased in the mid 90’s several years ago. They didn’t look like DMPL’s by current standards.
Fascinating - I do not collect Morgans at all, just was curious about the thread. The observations here that the TPG's DMPL standards tightened in 2001-2002 struck me as unusual. In pretty much everything else, is the consensus that the standards were tighter years ago? (I don't want to thread hijack, so treat this as a rhetorical question. I just assumed standards were tighter in all things "back in the day" and learned that with the PL/DMPL that may not be true. Thank you for that.)
Successful BST (me as buyer) with: Collectorcoins, PipestonePete, JasonRiffeRareCoins
There is nothing quite like a mirrored Morgan. It probably has something to do with the size of the coin.
At one point in my collecting efforts I scoured the auction sites for even proof like Morgans to add to my collection. That was before CAC so I have no idea how they would be viewed today but it was a fun effort and I still have them today.
These are very tough to image! My standards for DMPL are nice black and white contrast (decent frost) and preferably NO luster, just nice mirrors. Here is one in my collection, an 1884-CC in MS-65 DMPL. The second set of images are ones I like to do to show the contrast and the fields. Videos are also a big help for these coins.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
The DMPLs have intrigued me lately in part because I read here about the standards tightening up. Most threads have been about grade inflation and I like that these are more stringent now (at least in regard to the designation).
Has anyone experienced numerical grade inflation and a taking away of the designation on the same coin?
I have a 65dpl in an old fatty holder I'd grade 66pl today.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Yeah..... "standards" with these are somewhat fluid over the years. Depth of mirrors is one thing, but incomplete frostiness on the devices can also be an issue.
Here's one I picked up a few years ago. Difficult to photograph well. The craftsmen at the mint really had this stuff nailed down "back in the day."
Agree with all said above. I have seen some ms65dmpls that really did not look that good, although they were technically 65dmpl. I buy anywhere I can find one that has the look (and price) I am looking for. Don Rinkor is a good dealer for dmpls. It is possible to buy off of online images, but in hand always best. Consistent imaging helps, so if you know what a few coins in hand from a dealer look like, then you can often extrapolate that to other coins from said dealer. Looking at thousands of images on e bay has helped a lot over time. TrueView images are often available on a lot of 65dmpls, as it was worth the cost for most of those coins in PCGS holders. Dmpls are a lot of fun, but there is a huge spread between an average 65dmpl versus an ultra deep black and white 65dmpl of the same date.
Will’sProoflikes
Got this one off of eBay, took the risk, and got very lucky IMO.
Will’sProoflikes
DMPL’s are so tough to judge on eBay/online….so many ‘tweaked’ photos out there…that’s the one eBay area where I’ve returned the most coins due to being underwhelmed when the coin arrives….and I really, really need to be bummed to return a coin.
I love true mega cameo DMPL’s, so now I mostly wait for coin shows so I can judge them in-hand. Like hanging out at Don Rinkor’s table for example….you’re bound to find the real deal. And once in a blue moon I happen upon a true cameo DMPL at a coin shop.
This one-sided-cameo BEAST was my favorite pickup at FUN a couple of years back. I will pay major bucks for this look when I stumble upon it. 😆😎🤓