How to tell if a gold coin is proof like?
JerseyB
Posts: 99 ✭✭✭
So I bought this coin in auction a few weeks ago. I paid more because I liked the eye appeal and it looked prooflike in the pictures. PCGS description of this designation is vague IMO. The coin is very reflective. I am considering sending it back for a regrade. Does anyone have positive experience sending in coins for regrade?
Thanks
0
Comments
@JerseyB.... Welcome aboard. You already have the opinion of PCGS... Unlikely to change (although remotely possible). Judging from the pictures, I would say it would not get the PL designation. Cheers, RickO
@JerseyB
PL surfaces are tough to determine from photos.
In the photo you show I can see reflection of the numbers in the plastic below the coin. So tough to tell where the reflection is coming from. However, what you are trying to show is a way to determine PL. And also in the first photo the light reflecting but again tough in a photo.
One thing on a PL it needs to be PL across all the surface and occasionally a coin may not be PL in a local area. Also can look for amount of luster cartwheel on the coin or the lack thereof to help with PL determination.
Grading right now I have heard has been fairly strict.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
It is possible that you coin could earn a PL, you did not show a slab shot so I can only say that the coin is in a newer holder and likely graded after PCGS started to give the PL designation to all coins. As such it is very unlikely to receive that designation on a return trip.
In addition to reflective fields there needs to also be contrast with the devices/bust, I do not see any contrast in your photos and that is what I am basing my thought of no change on.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The reverse looks proof-like. I can't really tell what the obverse looks like.
Years ago PL grades were not given out very much except on some Morgan Dollars.
More recently, consideration of PL grades has expanded to other series.
If the current holder is an older one, you might have a chance to upgrade to a "PL".
This coin is somewhat pl on both sides and I doubt would get the designation.
If sent in as a regrade you may get the pl or maybe a +. Perhaps you could get both or neither.
They just recently started giving PL designations to gold business strikes, less than 5 years ago I believe, so if it was certified before that it would not have gotten the PL even if it were a flashlight in terms of reflectivity. NGC has been PLing coins for decades now I think including 55 and 58 coins.
When was the RFID chip introduced (I think in the last two years) because his holder has the
symbol... so im thinking the coin was already analyzed for PL surfaces and did not meet the grade...
Also the barcode is fully visible to lookup the cert if anyone has a scanner that can parse the data (mines on the fritz ATM)
It's all about what the people want...
@LukeMarshall @logger7
The PL July 2, 2019
https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-announcement-about-prooflike
The Chip Feb 24, 2020
https://www.pcgs.com/news/security-chip-slabs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
The coin is in a newer holder with a chip. Here another pic. Also in the trueview it looks like the obverse and reverse pictures are taken with 2 different lighting angles. It's nice to get different unbiased opinions.
.
I was going to ask which of the two Morgan pictures below did the coin look like (I was going to use a gold $20 or $10 but didn't quickly find any PL).
Then I saw you mentioned TV. If the obverse and reverse of the coin look similar to you, then yes something going on with the TV lighting (but I am no photographer). From the TV the Rev looks maybe and the Obv a not. And again check to make sure no local areas are non-PL.
Any way a picture that kind of shows the cartwheel can sometimes help. PL often have a tighter cartwheel and then some black and white contrast. This is gold so no white but same contrast.
Still won't be able to tell if it makes PL from photo but could give a little more info. If you go to any shows in your area or a dealer who knows PL in the area could ask for an in hand opinion.
Tried to pick two with similar luster cartwheel but the PL a little tighter and lighter and contrast in the less lighted areas.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Based on your pics and the TrueView, I say no PL. The reverse in particular has some patches that just aren't mirrored enough for the designation. However, that may just be the most interesting TrueViews I've seen, it is like they decided to take them with the obverse tilted and the reverse not. I have no idea why they chose this route. Another possibility is different post image processing, but I doubt this was the cause of such a major change.
Here's the TV:
Coin Photographer.
Perhaps that coin looks very different in hand. But in the picture, it doesn’t look remotely prooflike.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a grader told me that a coin cannot be both cartwheel and prooflike.
That sounds correct.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I used to hoard pl 20s for a hot sec when double eagle we’re about 600$ each. The rev looks PL to these eyes but the Obv may be a bit shallow which would preclude the designation because it is weighted more than the rev for grading. That a
Said it is clearly a PL coin just maybe not enough to get the coveted designation form PCGS who are pretty strict.
Also one does not need cameo contrast with the devices to get the PL designation, that was incorrect information from a previous poster
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Never have heard that. Here are the words from pcgs:
"Prooflike PL PCGS designates prooflike for coins that grade MS60 or better and show clear reflectivity, i.e. mirrored surfaces at a distance of two to four inches. If the cartwheel effect or striations cause an area to lose clarity, the designation will not apply."
So I have always defined cartwheel as the luster on the coin moving as one tilts it. It is like a person doing a cartwheel. On PL coins and even many DMPL's one can see the luster in the fields and when tilted back and forth the cartwheel effect. The above 84cc is a PL with luster in the fields.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Great question. PL terminology is relative new to the grading companies. I wonder if PCGS or NGC volunteer that a coin is PL if they have not been requested to do so, I have found in reference books that certain coins come PL; but, they are not listed as such in the population reports. It's extremely difficult to tell if a coin is PL from pictures. Best bet is to find a knowledgeable dealer who could advise after seeing the coin in hand.
By the way, CAC does not give gold stickers to PL coins that are not described as such. I asked. : )
PL terminology isn’t relatively new to the grading companies. They just expanded its application to other coins besides (primarily) Morgan dollars several years ago. I would hope that if deserved, the designation is given, without being requested. And if there are certain coins that “come PL but, they are not listed as such in the population reports” it could be because they weren’t submitted for grading after the designation was expanded to other types of coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I disagree to some extent. A die that was never polished is not going to produce any proof-like strikes.
However, a die that was polished and then was used enough to develop some "mint bloom" will produce strikes that are proof-like with "cartwheel" luster.
I remember asking Bob at Sloats about a clearly PL PCGS $20 Lib in his case back in the 1990s that was not designated obviously whether it was worth more. He said of course not. And he went on to recommend a CD as an investment, saying that numismatics were the worst investment.....Interesting perspective that might have been true in the 90s.
Your logic is sound. In Bowers' 2008 Commemorative guide book mention is made of various prooflike gold commemoratives and the 1916 McKinley PL being common. Yet, no 1916 PL are listed on the PCGS population or price guide. Two 1917s are listed; but, no price guide. It's always possible that Bowers and the grading services have two different definitions of what is PL.