Could this ms66 1880s Morgan be proof like?
Ppp
Posts: 517 ✭✭✭✭
Morgan 1880s pcgs ms66
I was not the one who submitted this coin for grading. Sorry for the pictures but even slabbed I think this coin is proof-like because the fields on both the obverse and reverse look like mirrors.
If a coin like this gets submitted as a straight morgan pcgs #7130 will pcgs, if warranted, upon their inspection change to pcgs pl #7129 or pcgs dmpl #97129?
If yes, then I am mistaken with my proof-like claim.
If no, then I am tempted to send this coin back in.
Thank you in advance and I look forward to any comments.
FYI-I have a lunch bet with a friend that two 1887 Morgan’s are either a 99% chance pl or a 50% chance dmpl. I submitted them as dmpl, they were received on April 2nd, and they have been in quality check for the last two weeks. Bragging rights and lunch are on the line. This 1880s coin got me thinking, did I have to submit my 1887 as dmpl or would pcgs automatically grade them if they were, thus my question above.
Edited: what timing, just got my grades for the 1887. I sent in two coins and both are ms64pl
Comments
I believe the 80-s is a relatively common PL Morgan. With that said, to me, your coin seems to be lacking the full frost and the mirrors to garner a PL coin... this thought is just due to a cursory glance through coinfacts...
I know PCGS has definitions/guidelines regarding mirrors for PL coins and I think this coin fails that.
With all that said I could be wrong and would not put up too much argument if one of the Morgan folks contradicted me.
It is a nice Morgan... just not PL
J
If PCGS thought it met their idea of PL when it was graded they would have graded it PL then. Of course grades are just opinions and opinions can and do change, so if you cracked it and sent in for grading now it could be a different story. Or not.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The designation is part of the grading process. It doesn’t matter if you call it PL, DMPL (or FB, FH, etc). They will designate it appropriately according to their criteria. That’s not to say that there aren’t mistakes or mechanical errors. The 80-S looks PL to me although it’s hard to be certain from the images. My guess is that the reverse just missed.
That lighting make it very difficult, at least for me, to judge PL. Also it is difficult to judge PL under better lighting. It appears there is some light off to the right side - maybe light from a window or other. The right side is brighter on the table and the slab and a slab shadow appear to the left side. It appears there is no direct lighting of the coin like a lamp / bulb overhead. Therefore the field surfaces can go 'dark' easier and the luster beams that might be there with an overhead light will not be there.
Also you do not need any frost to get a PL or dmpl. It is the reflectivity of the fields that count.
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
The designation is based solely on the reflectivity of the fields and not field to device (I.e. cameo) contrast. It’s hard to see based on the images if it might regrade as full PL or if it is semi PL. I see some potential weakness in the mirrors on the reverse, but there is no way to meaningfully opine on this without better pictures.
Cannot truly assess PL from that picture.... Does look as if it should have been CAM... but again, in hand evaluation would be necessary. Cheers, RickO
PCGS doesn’t use the “CAM” designation for business strike Morgan dollars.
Edited to add: As is often the case, it’s impossible to determine from images, whether the coin deserved a PL designation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Can't tell with those pics. See the shadow of the slab on the table? Lighting was only at 2:00 or so and very low to the coin so as to deceptively hide the fields and enhance the devices and Miss Liberty. Crappy pic.
bob
The luster showing up in the fileds at 3:00 and 10:00 on the reverse will most likely keep it from being designated PL.
I've been looking at a lot of DMPL Morgans in the 63/64/65 range and the 1880-S comes up a lot in my searches... as does the 1884-O and 1887?...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.