@cameonut2011 said:
Don’t be too disappointed. I don’t think a PCGS holder would make much of a difference if you market it well when it comes time to sell, especially with the CAC sticker. I wouldn’t recommend a no reserve auction as you would likely net more selling it directly to a collector or to CAC if and when the time comes anyway.
CAC buys coins? Please elaborate.
Yes. There will be no pre published value on something like this, but contact CAC by phone or by email and it will make you an offer based on the AU58 PL grade.
While they’ll likely make an offer - and a fair one at that - it’s not a coin in which they make a market. You’ll probably do better via auction or private sale, elsewhere.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@logger7 said:
As others said, PCGS does not designate AUs for whatever reason as PL, not sure why, so it was a foreordained conclusion. There are PLs that are phenomenally pronounced and others that are subtle.
One example of an AU PL that I submitted to NGC. 1829 Capped bust 50c, one year that has more PLs than some others. Coin looked a little "cleaned" but PLs tend to show everything. NGC called it 58PL, and increased the market value by $1K.
As has already been posted, PCGS has designated a small number PL AU examples.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@logger7 said:
As others said, PCGS does not designate AUs for whatever reason as PL, not sure why, so it was a foreordained conclusion. There are PLs that are phenomenally pronounced and others that are subtle.
One example of an AU PL that I submitted to NGC. 1829 Capped bust 50c, one year that has more PLs than some others. Coin looked a little "cleaned" but PLs tend to show everything. NGC called it 58PL, and increased the market value by $1K.
As has already been posted, PCGS has designated a small number PL AU examples.
David Hall said a few years back, prior to his departure, that those should have never been graded as such and that PCGS would buy them back any time the opportunity presented itself, IIRC.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@logger7 said:
As others said, PCGS does not designate AUs for whatever reason as PL, not sure why, so it was a foreordained conclusion. There are PLs that are phenomenally pronounced and others that are subtle.
One example of an AU PL that I submitted to NGC. 1829 Capped bust 50c, one year that has more PLs than some others. Coin looked a little "cleaned" but PLs tend to show everything. NGC called it 58PL, and increased the market value by $1K.
As has already been posted, PCGS has designated a small number PL AU examples.
David Hall said a few years back, prior to his departure, that those should have never been graded as such and that PCGS would buy them back any time the opportunity presented itself, IIRC.
I’ve seen a small number of AU coins that were clearly PL and am guessing you have, as well. I’d hope that PCGS would so-designate any deserving examples. That said, if I owned the coin in this thread (already with a CAC sticker), I’d just keep it as is or sell it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After all that I would just keep as is NGC PL 58 CAC. Would just throw it back in inventory at $2250 Sell (CPG CAC). Its a scarce low pop coin (20/19) which would attract a lot of interest. Would market it on its existing merits (with the CAC sticker it’s an A or B coin) but be open to a deal that is positive for me depending on room. I would not wholesale, liquidate it, or blow out via auction.
This is an example of why specify minimum grade on form.
@slider23 said:
There is a PCGS article written by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez - March 16, 2022
"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.
Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) – PCGS designates Deep Mirror Prooflike for Morgan Dollars that grade MS60 or better and show deep reflectivity, i.e. deeply mirrored surfaces. The differences between PL and DMPL is one of degree."
Based on this information there is no value or point in sending a AU PL Morgan to PCGS.
That is disappointing, and I guess it's my fault for not checking with PCGS before sending in but I based my whole submission on the fact that there were other AU58PLs (I never thought I had a chance at MS60). Not that PCGS has an obligation to be fair, it isn't fair if they've designated other AU58 Morgans PL but by policy (rather than merit) will not allow it on this one.
The thread certainly educational for me in that regard. I don’t think you should blame yourself necessarily I did not know all that controversy existed and am sure many out there would not either. As far as the TPG politics that’s above my pay grade plus it is what it is. If mine would just take his block (CAC sticker), get my price, and run for the end zone stomping over any defenders. At least you took your turn at bat. I have played the holder / resubmit for higher grade game, won some lost some.
@slider23 said:
There is a PCGS article written by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez - March 16, 2022
"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.
Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) – PCGS designates Deep Mirror Prooflike for Morgan Dollars that grade MS60 or better and show deep reflectivity, i.e. deeply mirrored surfaces. The differences between PL and DMPL is one of degree."
Based on this information there is no value or point in sending a AU PL Morgan to PCGS.
That is disappointing, and I guess it's my fault for not checking with PCGS before sending in but I based my whole submission on the fact that there were other AU58PLs (I never thought I had a chance at MS60). Not that PCGS has an obligation to be fair, it isn't fair if they've designated other AU58 Morgans PL but by policy (rather than merit) will not allow it on this one.
If their stated policy requires that the coin be at least MS60 in order to qualify for the designation, it doesn’t seem unfair to disallow it, (considering that the few with the designation were supposedly mistakes).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@slider23 said:
There is a PCGS article written by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez - March 16, 2022
"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.
Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) – PCGS designates Deep Mirror Prooflike for Morgan Dollars that grade MS60 or better and show deep reflectivity, i.e. deeply mirrored surfaces. The differences between PL and DMPL is one of degree."
Based on this information there is no value or point in sending a AU PL Morgan to PCGS.
That is disappointing, and I guess it's my fault for not checking with PCGS before sending in but I based my whole submission on the fact that there were other AU58PLs (I never thought I had a chance at MS60). Not that PCGS has an obligation to be fair, it isn't fair if they've designated other AU58 Morgans PL but by policy (rather than merit) will not allow it on this one.
If their stated policy requires that the coin be at least MS60 in order to qualify for the designation, it doesn’t seem unfair to disallow it, (considering that the few with the designation were supposedly mistakes).
But 6 coins isn't a mistake. At that point you have to just allow it. And what is the harm, what is the reason not to? PCGS needs to open up about the existence of the non MS PL and DMPL coins. I guess they've made statements in the past but it should be formally explained somewhere.
@slider23 said:
There is a PCGS article written by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez - March 16, 2022
"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.
Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) – PCGS designates Deep Mirror Prooflike for Morgan Dollars that grade MS60 or better and show deep reflectivity, i.e. deeply mirrored surfaces. The differences between PL and DMPL is one of degree."
Based on this information there is no value or point in sending a AU PL Morgan to PCGS.
That is disappointing, and I guess it's my fault for not checking with PCGS before sending in but I based my whole submission on the fact that there were other AU58PLs (I never thought I had a chance at MS60). Not that PCGS has an obligation to be fair, it isn't fair if they've designated other AU58 Morgans PL but by policy (rather than merit) will not allow it on this one.
If their stated policy requires that the coin be at least MS60 in order to qualify for the designation, it doesn’t seem unfair to disallow it, (considering that the few with the designation were supposedly mistakes).
But 6 coins isn't a mistake. At that point you have to just allow it. And what is the harm, what is the reason not to? PCGS needs to open up about the existence of the non MS PL and DMPL coins. I guess they've made statements in the past but it should be formally explained somewhere.
It’s not our determination to make, that 6 coins isn’t a mistake. And if it was a mistake, I wouldn’t want other coins to be allowed just because of it - 2 wrongs don’t make a right and neither would 7 wrongs.
I, too, wish they’d intentionally award the designation if/when deserved. But I’d much rather it be due to a change in official policy, rather merely because of past mistakes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It’s not our determination to make, that 6 coins isn’t a mistake. And if it was a mistake, I wouldn’t want other coins to be allowed just because of it - 2 wrongs don’t make a right and neither would 7 wrongs.
It is though. 1 or 2 is a mistake. 6 is a problem. At that point the horse is out of the barn. And they are only "wrong" because they violated an arbitrary (and evidently little-known) policy.
It’s not our determination to make, that 6 coins isn’t a mistake. And if it was a mistake, I wouldn’t want other coins to be allowed just because of it - 2 wrongs don’t make a right and neither would 7 wrongs.
It is though. 1 or 2 is a mistake. 6 is a problem. At that point the horse is out of the barn. And they are only "wrong" because they violated an arbitrary (and evidently little-known) policy.
Six times out of how many? Whatever the number, I’d think that the “problem” - number of mistakes - would represent an extremely small percentage.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Has anyone ever even seen the six coins? Coincidentally, two of those six are dated 1896-O. One is AU58PL and one is AU58DMPL. I would be enthusiastic to see a few of the six. As someone else mentioned, David Hall said those were errors/mistakes and if given the chance, PCGS will buy them back. So, again, is it possible some of these are mechanical errors? I think it is possible someone inadvertently typed in the incorrect coin number and printed the wrong label.
Thank you. Those posts are old and the responder cites 'lack of demand' which probably has changed since they started allowing PL for a lot more applications. Not sure why collectors wouldn't want the PL designation if the coin deserved it. I would demand an accurate grade and attribution no matter if AU or MS, surely I'm not in the minority here.
Thank you. Those posts are old and the responder cites 'lack of demand' which probably has changed since they started allowing PL for a lot more applications. Not sure why collectors wouldn't want the PL designation if the coin deserved it. I would demand an accurate grade and attribution no matter if AU or MS, surely I'm not in the minority here.
I don't think that demand has jumped for this particular grade, not enough to justify the disruption to graders' workflows, especially not when they have multiple-month backlogs right now. They may have expanded the PL designation to other types, but they still won't do those in AU as far as I've ever seen.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
At the end of the day, I don't think a circulated coin really carries PL properties any more. You need clear, uninhibited fields that allow for text to be read from a few inches away. In my experience, that is exceptionally rare. I dare say the only reason yours CAC'ed is because CAC's standards aren't as tight as PCGS's or NGC's modern standards for PL... or mine, for that matter. PL/DMPL is the one thing I simply do not trust CAC with; I have to see those in hand and make that call myself. I've seen far too many CAC PL/DMPL I don't agree with, almost entirely in older holders (like yours) prior to when PCGS/NGC tightened up on the designations.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
It’s not our determination to make, that 6 coins isn’t a mistake. And if it was a mistake, I wouldn’t want other coins to be allowed just because of it - 2 wrongs don’t make a right and neither would 7 wrongs.
It is though. 1 or 2 is a mistake. 6 is a problem. At that point the horse is out of the barn. And they are only "wrong" because they violated an arbitrary (and evidently little-known) policy.
With respect, tell that to variety collectors. Errors happen.
I would also add that "mistake" could mean a lapse in judgement that was corrected.
I do think that PCGS would be best served explaining it all thoroughly.
@DelawareDoons said:
I don't think that demand has jumped for this particular grade, not enough to justify the disruption to graders' workflows, especially not when they have multiple-month backlogs right now. They may have expanded the PL designation to other types, but they still won't do those in AU as far as I've ever seen.
Disrupt workflows? Please. The grading fee is the same whether Circ, AU, or MS. Every Morgan should theoretically be evaluated for PL/DMPL as this is being paid for. That's part of the workflow, not an interruption to it. regardless of the grade.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
You mean the due diligence of seeing other AU PL's in the pop report isn't good enough or valid and we shouldn't conclude that if there are other coins with the grade and designation that the coin we submit isn't also eligible for that same grade and designation?
@DelawareDoons said:
I don't think that demand has jumped for this particular grade, not enough to justify the disruption to graders' workflows, especially not when they have multiple-month backlogs right now. They may have expanded the PL designation to other types, but they still won't do those in AU as far as I've ever seen.
Disrupt workflows? Please. The grading fee is the same whether Circ, AU, or MS. Every Morgan should theoretically be evaluated for PL/DMPL as this is being paid for. That's part of the workflow, not an interruption to it. regardless of the grade.
All due respect, I'm pretty damn sure you've never worked as a grader so you have no idea what the job entails. On the other hand, I've trialed as a grader and been offered jobs... I know what the job constitutes, and it's a bit more than what you perceive. Graders are creatures of habit. Disrupting those habits affects everything. When an economy sub is taking 4 dang months to work through the system, that's not the time to introduce new standards.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
You mean the due diligence of seeing other AU PL's in the pop report isn't good enough or valid and we shouldn't conclude that if there are other coins with the grade and designation that the coin we submit isn't also eligible for that same grade and designation?
I mean the due diligence of checking coinfacts auction prices, realizing those PCGS examples NEVER show up on the market, and thus, a set using them is virtually impossible since they essentially don't exist. PCGS has given us collectors and dealers an incredible number of tools to use to do research. From a collectors standpoint, we have a fairly binary path to take. We can use them to make informed decisions, or whine about our poor decisions after the fact and expect these businesses to cater to our whims rather than established norms within the market. I know which path I've chosen to pursue.
Now that I think about it, due diligence like asking some established major dealers what they think about pop reports in what you're trying to collect wouldn't be a terrible idea either. I'm sure guys like Don Rinkor and Larry Shapiro would tell you it's folly to go after a PCGS PL Morgan set relying on AU's for the tougher dates.
Ya know what Bruce Lee said? Be like water. Water is dynamic, it moves and changes as it encounters obstacles. Rocks just get stuck, until they eventually erode away to nothing.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I dare say the only reason yours CAC'ed is because CAC's standards aren't as tight as PCGS's or NGC's modern standards for PL... or mine, for that matter. PL/DMPL is the one thing I simply do not trust CAC with; I have to see those in hand and make that call myself. I've seen far too many CAC PL/DMPL I don't agree with, almost entirely in older holders (like yours) prior to when PCGS/NGC tightened up on the designations.
The problem with the older holders PL/DMPL standards is mainly with the DMPL as most of the older PL holders meet the current PL standards at both NGC and PCGS. The main problem with the older holders is the DMPL mirrors are often found below 4". In the older holders if the coin had heavy frost it weighted a lot in getting the DMPL designation. I disagree with your comment about CAC PL and DMPL standards are lower than NGC and PCGS modern standards. Are there some PL/ DMPL CAC coins that should not have been issued a sticker? Yes, but for the most part CAC does a good job.
You are making a judgment that the OP coin should not have a CAC sticker based on photos that you can not evaluate the mirror depth. I agree the photos do not display a typical PL look, but the coin is most likely PL based on NGC, CAC and the OP evaluation.
Didn't read the whole thread to be honest so probably repeating some but that coin is never going to cross with the sticker it's perfect just how it is. If you're trying to sell do so as is otherwise keep and enjoy the coin and don't worry about chasing it any further.
@DelawareDoons said:
All due respect, I'm pretty damn sure you've never worked as a grader so you have no idea what the job entails. On the other hand, I've trialed as a grader and been offered jobs... I know what the job constitutes, and it's a bit more than what you perceive. Graders are creatures of habit. Disrupting those habits affects everything. When an economy sub is taking 4 dang months to work through the system, that's not the time to introduce new standards.
So please tell us about the grading process. I believe we are all aware that a coin is graded by at least 3 people. You are implying that a numerical grade is determined and then there is a second round to assess PL/DMPL if and only if the coin is 60 or better. I guess it could work that way but seems awfully inefficient rather than to have each grader give a coin a number and designation and handle the coin once. You also further imply that it would be a huge disruption to change the logic from "if grade > 60 then evaluate PL/DMPL" to "if grade > 50 then evaluate PL/DMPL." Which it can't be because if there are multiple graders and a coin is 58/60/61 borderline, if a grader thinks it's 58 they still need to evaluate PL/DMPL just in case the other graders think it's 60 or better. Doesn't seem like PL/DMPL evaluation is that big of an effort with the right setup but what do I know? Not much evidently.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
You mean the due diligence of seeing other AU PL's in the pop report isn't good enough or valid and we shouldn't conclude that if there are other coins with the grade and designation that the coin we submit isn't also eligible for that same grade and designation?
I mean the due diligence of checking coinfacts auction prices, realizing those PCGS examples NEVER show up on the market, and thus, a set using them is virtually impossible since they essentially don't exist. PCGS has given us collectors and dealers an incredible number of tools to use to do research. From a collectors standpoint, we have a fairly binary path to take. We can use them to make informed decisions, or whine about our poor decisions after the fact and expect these businesses to cater to our whims rather than established norms within the market. I know which path I've chosen to pursue.
Now that I think about it, due diligence like asking some established major dealers what they think about pop reports in what you're trying to collect wouldn't be a terrible idea either. I'm sure guys like Don Rinkor and Larry Shapiro would tell you it's folly to go after a PCGS PL Morgan set relying on AU's for the tougher dates.
I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that not seeing one of only 6 examples go to auction in recent history means anything. I guess I'm the one in crazy town for assuming that if pop reports shows a coin exists that mine could add to that population. I guess I live in fairy tale land.
It's presumptuous to say I'm relying on AU PLs to complete my collection. The reality is that for some issues, examples only come to market every few years and even then they might not be an affordable grade. If 1896-O was abundantly available in PL/DMPL I would have never tried to make the AU58 work. This coin is a slot filler until something better comes along and which could take 10 years or more, but that doesn't change the question of if PCGS should grade more of these examples.
I dare say the only reason yours CAC'ed is because CAC's standards aren't as tight as PCGS's or NGC's modern standards for PL... or mine, for that matter. PL/DMPL is the one thing I simply do not trust CAC with; I have to see those in hand and make that call myself. I've seen far too many CAC PL/DMPL I don't agree with, almost entirely in older holders (like yours) prior to when PCGS/NGC tightened up on the designations.
The problem with the older holders PL/DMPL standards is mainly with the DMPL as most of the older PL holders meet the current PL standards at both NGC and PCGS. The main problem with the older holders is the DMPL mirrors are often found below 4". In the older holders if the coin had heavy frost it weighted a lot in getting the DMPL designation. I disagree with your comment about CAC PL and DMPL standards are lower than NGC and PCGS modern standards. Are there some PL/ DMPL CAC coins that should not have been issued a sticker? Yes, but for the most part CAC does a good job.
You are making a judgment that the OP coin should not have a CAC sticker based on photos that you can not evaluate the mirror depth.
No, I am simply saying I don't trust CAC stickers on PL/DMPL and insist upon seeing those in hand prior to making a firm decision on them. I am speculating that may be why it's CAC and yet it won't cross. A probability, if you would. We'll have to agree to disagree in regards to the PL designation. I'll openly admit that I KNOW my standards are tighter than all three of the aforementioned graders when it comes to PL/DMPL, and I can tell you my standards are mostly in-line with PCGS's, albeit slightly tighter.
From loosest to tightest, I'd rank them as follows.
CAC
NGC
PCGS
Logically this makes sense, as NGC didn't tighten up their standards on PL/DPL until after JA had divested himself, so it follows that his standards for the aforementioned designations would throw back more to his days as a grader, when it was applied with.. less vigorous standards.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@ProofCollection, you're debating with and complaining to the wrong audience. None of us here can do anything about your displeasure with PCGS' policy or the data showing in their population report.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DelawareDoons said:
All due respect, I'm pretty damn sure you've never worked as a grader so you have no idea what the job entails. On the other hand, I've trialed as a grader and been offered jobs... I know what the job constitutes, and it's a bit more than what you perceive. Graders are creatures of habit. Disrupting those habits affects everything. When an economy sub is taking 4 dang months to work through the system, that's not the time to introduce new standards.
So please tell us about the grading process. I believe we are all aware that a coin is graded by at least 3 people. You are implying that a numerical grade is determined and then there is a second round to assess PL/DMPL if and only if the coin is 60 or better. I guess it could work that way but seems awfully inefficient rather than to have each grader give a coin a number and designation and handle the coin once. You also further imply that it would be a huge disruption to change the logic from "if grade > 60 then evaluate PL/DMPL" to "if grade > 50 then evaluate PL/DMPL." Which it can't be because if there are multiple graders and a coin is 58/60/61 borderline, if a grader thinks it's 58 they still need to evaluate PL/DMPL just in case the other graders think it's 60 or better. Doesn't seem like PL/DMPL evaluation is that big of an effort with the right setup but what do I know? Not much evidently.
You're focusing on the actual process of grading. I'm talking about the mental process of grading, and the stress these graders are under right now given their immense workloads. Being a TPG grader is probably the single most stressful job in numismatics. Most TPG graders could walk away tomorrow for a much comfier position in the business... especially right now when people who know coins are in super high demand across the industry. So the last thing you'd want to do from a human capital management perspective is stress your talent pool out some more by adding new layers to their job. There is zero logic, reason, or incentive for PCGS to add circulated PL grading at this juncture, and as long as the grading business is thriving like it is now, that will continue to be the case.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
You mean the due diligence of seeing other AU PL's in the pop report isn't good enough or valid and we shouldn't conclude that if there are other coins with the grade and designation that the coin we submit isn't also eligible for that same grade and designation?
I mean the due diligence of checking coinfacts auction prices, realizing those PCGS examples NEVER show up on the market, and thus, a set using them is virtually impossible since they essentially don't exist. PCGS has given us collectors and dealers an incredible number of tools to use to do research. From a collectors standpoint, we have a fairly binary path to take. We can use them to make informed decisions, or whine about our poor decisions after the fact and expect these businesses to cater to our whims rather than established norms within the market. I know which path I've chosen to pursue.
Now that I think about it, due diligence like asking some established major dealers what they think about pop reports in what you're trying to collect wouldn't be a terrible idea either. I'm sure guys like Don Rinkor and Larry Shapiro would tell you it's folly to go after a PCGS PL Morgan set relying on AU's for the tougher dates.
I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that not seeing one of only 6 examples go to auction in recent history means anything. I guess I'm the one in crazy town for assuming that if pop reports shows a coin exists that mine could add to that population. I guess I live in fairy tale land.
It's presumptuous to say I'm relying on AU PLs to complete my collection. The reality is that for some issues, examples only come to market every few years and even then they might not be an affordable grade. If 1896-O was abundantly available in PL/DMPL I would have never tried to make the AU58 work. This coin is a slot filler until something better comes along and which could take 10 years or more, but that doesn't change the question of if PCGS should grade more of these examples.
So you agree; You should buy the coin in the holder you want it in, eh? When I buy hole fillers, I buy them fully expecting I'm getting the short end of the stick but the temporary satisfaction will be worth the trouble.
My point remains the same; some basic due diligence would have you realizing PCGS doesn't do PL on circulated coins and hasn't ever done it with any consistency. If you did your homework, you wouldn't have wasted your money and time submitting this one for an attempted cross with the PL designation intact.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Logically this makes sense, as NGC didn't tighten up their standards on PL/DPL until after JA had divested himself, so it follows that his standards for the aforementioned designations would throw back more to his days as a grader, when it was applied with.. less vigorous standards.
I have submitted about 30 PL/DMPL PCGS and NGC coins to CAC for the sticker, and I have found that JA standards are more inline with PCGS than NGC.
My ranking weakest to tightest on PL and DMPL
NGC
CAC
PCGS
@DelawareDoons said:
You're focusing on the actual process of grading. I'm talking about the mental process of grading, and the stress these graders are under right now given their immense workloads. Being a TPG grader is probably the single most stressful job in numismatics. Most TPG graders could walk away tomorrow for a much comfier position in the business... especially right now when people who know coins are in super high demand across the industry. So the last thing you'd want to do from a human capital management perspective is stress your talent pool out some more by adding new layers to their job. There is zero logic, reason, or incentive for PCGS to add circulated PL grading at this juncture, and as long as the grading business is thriving like it is now, that will continue to be the case.
If you're talking about the mental process of grading that's a pretty important distinction to make. I get that the job is not easy and can be stressful, but I'm not going to buy the "the graders have too much on their plate to contemplate AU PL/DMPL Morgan dollars" argument.
So you agree; You should buy the coin in the holder you want it in, eh? When I buy hole fillers, I buy them fully expecting I'm getting the short end of the stick but the temporary satisfaction will be worth the trouble.
Yes due to the limited availability of the ultimate coin to fill this slot. And I fully expected that I may end up with this outcome. That doesn't mean I can't voice some opinions about it.
My point remains the same; some basic due diligence would have you realizing PCGS doesn't do PL on circulated coins and hasn't ever done it with any consistency. If you did your homework, you wouldn't have wasted your money and time submitting this one for an attempted cross with the PL designation intact.
UPDATE: I had to call PCGS for another reason but while I had Kevin on the phone I asked him about this topic and my submission. He said that PCGS does or will designate AU PL Morgans and that in the notes for my submission they did not feel the coin was PL. So there you go. I can live with that.
@ProofCollection said:
Thanks for all of the feedback. And the result is....
DNC with minimum 58PL grade. I really wish if something DNC'd PCGS would provide the grade it would cross at because it could be either the designation or the grade. With the CAC sticker I was confident in my assessment here but that's how it goes.
Any ideas on if I should resubmit? Or crackout? I think I can easily get NGC to regrade it 58PL and get CAC again.
1896-O is really tough to find in PL and DMPL.
I think a crack out is high risk, low reward and needlessly so. While much of the “CAC only” crowd is PCGS CAC only, a smaller subset actively seek out NGC stickered coins too.
Nonononononono........
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
If anyone is interested, look up the 2012 thread titles “PCGS Won’t Give PL or DMPL to AU Morgans”. We had this discussion back then. It appears that the pl and dmpl AU Morgan mechanical errors were equal in number 10 years ago.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Will’sProoflikes
@sweetwilliet said:
If anyone is interested, look up the 2012 thread titles “PCGS Won’t Give PL or DMPL to AU Morgans”. We had this discussion back then. It appears that the pl and dmpl AU Morgan mechanical errors were equal in number 10 years ago.
Can someone post a link? I can't find it.
I still can't help but think PCGS Kevin may have misinformed me about the AU PL/DMPL policy given that PCGS has not updated any of the web pages that still say MS only, but that's all I have to go on.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Will’sProoflikes
@sweetwilliet said:
If anyone is interested, look up the 2012 thread titles “PCGS Won’t Give PL or DMPL to AU Morgans”. We had this discussion back then. It appears that the pl and dmpl AU Morgan mechanical errors were equal in number 10 years ago.
Can someone post a link? I can't find it.
I still can't help but think PCGS Kevin may have misinformed me about the AU PL/DMPL policy given that PCGS has not updated any of the web pages that still say MS only, but that's all I have to go on.
Interesting thread, and it still appears there is contradictory info from PCGS on this ("Kevin" vs PCGS Website). The "PCGS Customer Service" in the 2012 thread has been inactive since 2014. Perhaps see if @HeatherBoyd can get to the bottom of this?
FYI, because this may help someone some day. I was just able to get a reply from Steve Feltner, Director of Numismatic Education and Grading Team Leader:
we only do PL designations on coins that are uncirculated. If the coin is graded AU or lower, we do not consider it for PL.
And in a follow up email when I asked about the existing AU PL and DMPL Morgans:
Looking through the audit trail, these are all mechanical or clerical errors. Situations where the grade was dropped from MS to AU but the suffix was inadvertently kept. I have spoken to the grading team and they confirmed that no Morgan Dollars qualify for PL unless they are MS60 or higher. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will work on cleaning up the population report accordingly.
I'm curious how they will "clean up" the pop report. This would be like denying their existence. I would think they would either have to modify the grade in their database or remove it entirely. Imagine going to verify your cert if you owned one and it no longer comes up.
Someone in this thread said that once a coin becomes an AU that it loses its PL quality. I disagree. If you had a PL UNC Morgan that got some slight rub making it an AU 58 it would still retain its PL mirrored fields. Even thou PCGS may not grade it as such.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 said:
Someone in this thread said that once a coin becomes an AU that it loses its PL quality. I disagree. If you had a PL UNC Morgan that got some slight rub making it an AU 58 it would still retain its PL mirrored fields. Even thou PCGS may not grade it as such.
Exactly. Sometime a coin is only AU58 because of a few extremely light scratches on the devices.
@cameonut2011 said:
Don’t be too disappointed. I don’t think a PCGS holder would make much of a difference if you market it well when it comes time to sell, especially with the CAC sticker. I wouldn’t recommend a no reserve auction as you would likely net more selling it directly to a collector or to CAC if and when the time comes anyway.
If you cross it, do so to CACG when they get rolling. With the bean, I understand that is automatic. And it terms of value the CAC holder is going to be tops IMO...........
@cameonut2011 said:
Don’t be too disappointed. I don’t think a PCGS holder would make much of a difference if you market it well when it comes time to sell, especially with the CAC sticker. I wouldn’t recommend a no reserve auction as you would likely net more selling it directly to a collector or to CAC if and when the time comes anyway.
If you cross it, do so to CACG when they get rolling. With the bean, I understand that is automatic. And it terms of value the CAC holder is going to be tops IMO...........
Wow, I forgot all about that as an option. Perfect! Still the only problem is I can't add to my PCGS registry set, but at least I can sell it for top value. some day.
UPDATE: After showing this around to a few dealers and getting their advice, and after considering how scratched the slab was, I decided to send this back to NGC for re-grade and photo-vision if nothing else but a new slab but the possibility of an upgrade to MS (MS61?). The big question here: Is that wear on the brow and cheek which will keep this coin at AU58, or is it just dirt/grime (which is not so apparent in the original photo above and in hand)? NGC has sent me these new photos, but the grade has not posted yet. Unfortunately they do not photograph these such that you can see the mirrors.
Link for full size: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ovxwbvlzlz7fit/6513789-001.JPG?dl=0
Link for full size: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfvqdhdjsx89el/6513789-001r.JPG?dl=0
No. Too much wear. The reverse photo is dull. It has to look better in person.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I would be extremely surprised if that coin came back higher than 58. The cheekbone and eyebrow tell the story. All that chatter in the fields also indicates light circulation.
It is still a nice coin though, and cool to see PL on an AU.
I have an AU 79-O that I think could go PL, might try some day but I'm not really motivated to.
PLs show marks a lot more from what I've seen. I had an older holder 84-s Morgan that bumped up from 55 to NGC 58, it was semi-pl but not enough to get the designation.
Comments
While they’ll likely make an offer - and a fair one at that - it’s not a coin in which they make a market. You’ll probably do better via auction or private sale, elsewhere.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As has already been posted, PCGS has designated a small number PL AU examples.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
David Hall said a few years back, prior to his departure, that those should have never been graded as such and that PCGS would buy them back any time the opportunity presented itself, IIRC.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
OP, that holder/sticker is what I'd call a coffin because PCGS will never designate it as PL.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I’ve seen a small number of AU coins that were clearly PL and am guessing you have, as well. I’d hope that PCGS would so-designate any deserving examples. That said, if I owned the coin in this thread (already with a CAC sticker), I’d just keep it as is or sell it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After all that I would just keep as is NGC PL 58 CAC. Would just throw it back in inventory at $2250 Sell (CPG CAC). Its a scarce low pop coin (20/19) which would attract a lot of interest. Would market it on its existing merits (with the CAC sticker it’s an A or B coin) but be open to a deal that is positive for me depending on room. I would not wholesale, liquidate it, or blow out via auction.
This is an example of why specify minimum grade on form.
That is disappointing, and I guess it's my fault for not checking with PCGS before sending in but I based my whole submission on the fact that there were other AU58PLs (I never thought I had a chance at MS60). Not that PCGS has an obligation to be fair, it isn't fair if they've designated other AU58 Morgans PL but by policy (rather than merit) will not allow it on this one.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The thread certainly educational for me in that regard. I don’t think you should blame yourself necessarily I did not know all that controversy existed and am sure many out there would not either. As far as the TPG politics that’s above my pay grade plus it is what it is. If mine would just take his block (CAC sticker), get my price, and run for the end zone stomping over any defenders. At least you took your turn at bat. I have played the holder / resubmit for higher grade game, won some lost some.
If their stated policy requires that the coin be at least MS60 in order to qualify for the designation, it doesn’t seem unfair to disallow it, (considering that the few with the designation were supposedly mistakes).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But 6 coins isn't a mistake. At that point you have to just allow it. And what is the harm, what is the reason not to? PCGS needs to open up about the existence of the non MS PL and DMPL coins. I guess they've made statements in the past but it should be formally explained somewhere.
http://ProofCollection.Net
It’s not our determination to make, that 6 coins isn’t a mistake. And if it was a mistake, I wouldn’t want other coins to be allowed just because of it - 2 wrongs don’t make a right and neither would 7 wrongs.
I, too, wish they’d intentionally award the designation if/when deserved. But I’d much rather it be due to a change in official policy, rather merely because of past mistakes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It is though. 1 or 2 is a mistake. 6 is a problem. At that point the horse is out of the barn. And they are only "wrong" because they violated an arbitrary (and evidently little-known) policy.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Six times out of how many? Whatever the number, I’d think that the “problem” - number of mistakes - would represent an extremely small percentage.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Has anyone ever even seen the six coins? Coincidentally, two of those six are dated 1896-O. One is AU58PL and one is AU58DMPL. I would be enthusiastic to see a few of the six. As someone else mentioned, David Hall said those were errors/mistakes and if given the chance, PCGS will buy them back. So, again, is it possible some of these are mechanical errors? I think it is possible someone inadvertently typed in the incorrect coin number and printed the wrong label.
On Bust halves alone, NGC has designated dozens of AU PLs. Btw, what is the NGC PL population on this coin, AU and then BU?
While he isn't calling it a mistake, here's a clear post by David Hall stating why they don't do PL on circs.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/4189106#Comment_4189106
Another post with a similar theme.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/2330950#Comment_2330950
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thank you. Those posts are old and the responder cites 'lack of demand' which probably has changed since they started allowing PL for a lot more applications. Not sure why collectors wouldn't want the PL designation if the coin deserved it. I would demand an accurate grade and attribution no matter if AU or MS, surely I'm not in the minority here.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I don't think that demand has jumped for this particular grade, not enough to justify the disruption to graders' workflows, especially not when they have multiple-month backlogs right now. They may have expanded the PL designation to other types, but they still won't do those in AU as far as I've ever seen.
I understand your disappointment and frustration with this reality, but if you're working on a PL set in PCGS holders, 10 minutes of due diligence would inform you that you're going to have to shell out for unc coins across the board, unless you get exceptionally lucky. There's an old saying when it comes to TPG coins; buy the coin you want in the holder you want. Especially with Morgans, it shouldn't be hard to find something you like in a PCGS holder over a 5 year timeline unless you specifically want a 58PL... Which you wouldn't do if you had done your due diligence.
At the end of the day, I don't think a circulated coin really carries PL properties any more. You need clear, uninhibited fields that allow for text to be read from a few inches away. In my experience, that is exceptionally rare. I dare say the only reason yours CAC'ed is because CAC's standards aren't as tight as PCGS's or NGC's modern standards for PL... or mine, for that matter. PL/DMPL is the one thing I simply do not trust CAC with; I have to see those in hand and make that call myself. I've seen far too many CAC PL/DMPL I don't agree with, almost entirely in older holders (like yours) prior to when PCGS/NGC tightened up on the designations.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
With respect, tell that to variety collectors. Errors happen.
I would also add that "mistake" could mean a lapse in judgement that was corrected.
I do think that PCGS would be best served explaining it all thoroughly.
Disrupt workflows? Please. The grading fee is the same whether Circ, AU, or MS. Every Morgan should theoretically be evaluated for PL/DMPL as this is being paid for. That's part of the workflow, not an interruption to it. regardless of the grade.
You mean the due diligence of seeing other AU PL's in the pop report isn't good enough or valid and we shouldn't conclude that if there are other coins with the grade and designation that the coin we submit isn't also eligible for that same grade and designation?
http://ProofCollection.Net
All due respect, I'm pretty damn sure you've never worked as a grader so you have no idea what the job entails. On the other hand, I've trialed as a grader and been offered jobs... I know what the job constitutes, and it's a bit more than what you perceive. Graders are creatures of habit. Disrupting those habits affects everything. When an economy sub is taking 4 dang months to work through the system, that's not the time to introduce new standards.
I mean the due diligence of checking coinfacts auction prices, realizing those PCGS examples NEVER show up on the market, and thus, a set using them is virtually impossible since they essentially don't exist. PCGS has given us collectors and dealers an incredible number of tools to use to do research. From a collectors standpoint, we have a fairly binary path to take. We can use them to make informed decisions, or whine about our poor decisions after the fact and expect these businesses to cater to our whims rather than established norms within the market. I know which path I've chosen to pursue.
Now that I think about it, due diligence like asking some established major dealers what they think about pop reports in what you're trying to collect wouldn't be a terrible idea either. I'm sure guys like Don Rinkor and Larry Shapiro would tell you it's folly to go after a PCGS PL Morgan set relying on AU's for the tougher dates.
Ya know what Bruce Lee said? Be like water. Water is dynamic, it moves and changes as it encounters obstacles. Rocks just get stuck, until they eventually erode away to nothing.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I looked up the NGC population on these. https://www.ngccoin.com/census/united-states/dollars/49/
8 in AU55/20 in 58 PL. 5 in dmpl.
https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/united-states/dollars/morgan-dollars-1878-1921/17243/1896-o-1-ms/
PL doubles the value approximately.
The problem with the older holders PL/DMPL standards is mainly with the DMPL as most of the older PL holders meet the current PL standards at both NGC and PCGS. The main problem with the older holders is the DMPL mirrors are often found below 4". In the older holders if the coin had heavy frost it weighted a lot in getting the DMPL designation. I disagree with your comment about CAC PL and DMPL standards are lower than NGC and PCGS modern standards. Are there some PL/ DMPL CAC coins that should not have been issued a sticker? Yes, but for the most part CAC does a good job.
You are making a judgment that the OP coin should not have a CAC sticker based on photos that you can not evaluate the mirror depth. I agree the photos do not display a typical PL look, but the coin is most likely PL based on NGC, CAC and the OP evaluation.
Didn't read the whole thread to be honest so probably repeating some but that coin is never going to cross with the sticker it's perfect just how it is. If you're trying to sell do so as is otherwise keep and enjoy the coin and don't worry about chasing it any further.
IMO
So please tell us about the grading process. I believe we are all aware that a coin is graded by at least 3 people. You are implying that a numerical grade is determined and then there is a second round to assess PL/DMPL if and only if the coin is 60 or better. I guess it could work that way but seems awfully inefficient rather than to have each grader give a coin a number and designation and handle the coin once. You also further imply that it would be a huge disruption to change the logic from "if grade > 60 then evaluate PL/DMPL" to "if grade > 50 then evaluate PL/DMPL." Which it can't be because if there are multiple graders and a coin is 58/60/61 borderline, if a grader thinks it's 58 they still need to evaluate PL/DMPL just in case the other graders think it's 60 or better. Doesn't seem like PL/DMPL evaluation is that big of an effort with the right setup but what do I know? Not much evidently.
I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that not seeing one of only 6 examples go to auction in recent history means anything. I guess I'm the one in crazy town for assuming that if pop reports shows a coin exists that mine could add to that population. I guess I live in fairy tale land.
It's presumptuous to say I'm relying on AU PLs to complete my collection. The reality is that for some issues, examples only come to market every few years and even then they might not be an affordable grade. If 1896-O was abundantly available in PL/DMPL I would have never tried to make the AU58 work. This coin is a slot filler until something better comes along and which could take 10 years or more, but that doesn't change the question of if PCGS should grade more of these examples.
http://ProofCollection.Net
No, I am simply saying I don't trust CAC stickers on PL/DMPL and insist upon seeing those in hand prior to making a firm decision on them. I am speculating that may be why it's CAC and yet it won't cross. A probability, if you would. We'll have to agree to disagree in regards to the PL designation. I'll openly admit that I KNOW my standards are tighter than all three of the aforementioned graders when it comes to PL/DMPL, and I can tell you my standards are mostly in-line with PCGS's, albeit slightly tighter.
From loosest to tightest, I'd rank them as follows.
CAC
NGC
PCGS
Logically this makes sense, as NGC didn't tighten up their standards on PL/DPL until after JA had divested himself, so it follows that his standards for the aforementioned designations would throw back more to his days as a grader, when it was applied with.. less vigorous standards.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
The pop reports can have errors.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
@ProofCollection, you're debating with and complaining to the wrong audience. None of us here can do anything about your displeasure with PCGS' policy or the data showing in their population report.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You're focusing on the actual process of grading. I'm talking about the mental process of grading, and the stress these graders are under right now given their immense workloads. Being a TPG grader is probably the single most stressful job in numismatics. Most TPG graders could walk away tomorrow for a much comfier position in the business... especially right now when people who know coins are in super high demand across the industry. So the last thing you'd want to do from a human capital management perspective is stress your talent pool out some more by adding new layers to their job. There is zero logic, reason, or incentive for PCGS to add circulated PL grading at this juncture, and as long as the grading business is thriving like it is now, that will continue to be the case.
So you agree; You should buy the coin in the holder you want it in, eh? When I buy hole fillers, I buy them fully expecting I'm getting the short end of the stick but the temporary satisfaction will be worth the trouble.
My point remains the same; some basic due diligence would have you realizing PCGS doesn't do PL on circulated coins and hasn't ever done it with any consistency. If you did your homework, you wouldn't have wasted your money and time submitting this one for an attempted cross with the PL designation intact.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I have submitted about 30 PL/DMPL PCGS and NGC coins to CAC for the sticker, and I have found that JA standards are more inline with PCGS than NGC.
My ranking weakest to tightest on PL and DMPL
NGC
CAC
PCGS
If you're talking about the mental process of grading that's a pretty important distinction to make. I get that the job is not easy and can be stressful, but I'm not going to buy the "the graders have too much on their plate to contemplate AU PL/DMPL Morgan dollars" argument.
Yes due to the limited availability of the ultimate coin to fill this slot. And I fully expected that I may end up with this outcome. That doesn't mean I can't voice some opinions about it.
UPDATE: I had to call PCGS for another reason but while I had Kevin on the phone I asked him about this topic and my submission. He said that PCGS does or will designate AU PL Morgans and that in the notes for my submission they did not feel the coin was PL. So there you go. I can live with that.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Nonononononono........
Ahem,,,, So DID it cross?
If anyone is interested, look up the 2012 thread titles “PCGS Won’t Give PL or DMPL to AU Morgans”. We had this discussion back then. It appears that the pl and dmpl AU Morgan mechanical errors were equal in number 10 years ago.
Will’sProoflikes
It was posted back a bit, no, it did not cross.
Can someone post a link? I can't find it.
I still can't help but think PCGS Kevin may have misinformed me about the AU PL/DMPL policy given that PCGS has not updated any of the web pages that still say MS only, but that's all I have to go on.
http://ProofCollection.Net
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/10113104#Comment_10113104
I will try. See if this works.
Will’sProoflikes
Interesting thread, and it still appears there is contradictory info from PCGS on this ("Kevin" vs PCGS Website). The "PCGS Customer Service" in the 2012 thread has been inactive since 2014. Perhaps see if @HeatherBoyd can get to the bottom of this?
FYI, because this may help someone some day. I was just able to get a reply from Steve Feltner, Director of Numismatic Education and Grading Team Leader:
And in a follow up email when I asked about the existing AU PL and DMPL Morgans:
I'm curious how they will "clean up" the pop report. This would be like denying their existence. I would think they would either have to modify the grade in their database or remove it entirely. Imagine going to verify your cert if you owned one and it no longer comes up.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I would be pissed!!
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Someone in this thread said that once a coin becomes an AU that it loses its PL quality. I disagree. If you had a PL UNC Morgan that got some slight rub making it an AU 58 it would still retain its PL mirrored fields. Even thou PCGS may not grade it as such.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Exactly. Sometime a coin is only AU58 because of a few extremely light scratches on the devices.
http://ProofCollection.Net
If you cross it, do so to CACG when they get rolling. With the bean, I understand that is automatic. And it terms of value the CAC holder is going to be tops IMO...........
Wow, I forgot all about that as an option. Perfect! Still the only problem is I can't add to my PCGS registry set, but at least I can sell it for top value. some day.
http://ProofCollection.Net
UPDATE: After showing this around to a few dealers and getting their advice, and after considering how scratched the slab was, I decided to send this back to NGC for re-grade and photo-vision if nothing else but a new slab but the possibility of an upgrade to MS (MS61?). The big question here: Is that wear on the brow and cheek which will keep this coin at AU58, or is it just dirt/grime (which is not so apparent in the original photo above and in hand)? NGC has sent me these new photos, but the grade has not posted yet. Unfortunately they do not photograph these such that you can see the mirrors.
Link for full size: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ovxwbvlzlz7fit/6513789-001.JPG?dl=0
Link for full size: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfvqdhdjsx89el/6513789-001r.JPG?dl=0
http://ProofCollection.Net
No. Too much wear. The reverse photo is dull. It has to look better in person.
I would be extremely surprised if that coin came back higher than 58. The cheekbone and eyebrow tell the story. All that chatter in the fields also indicates light circulation.
It is still a nice coin though, and cool to see PL on an AU.
I have an AU 79-O that I think could go PL, might try some day but I'm not really motivated to.
Collector, occasional seller
PLs show marks a lot more from what I've seen. I had an older holder 84-s Morgan that bumped up from 55 to NGC 58, it was semi-pl but not enough to get the designation.
I think the obverse fields show enough wear that it will keep at AU58. Sill very nice coin.