2000-D Kennedy Half. DMPL

Tramp

This Kennedy appeared not to have a MM, but viewed nearly horizontally, the D MM can be seen slightly. IMO both the obverse and reverse dies had to be heavily laden with grease to get this whole coin DMPL effect. Even the first T "Trust" is difficult to make out. It has as much mirror effect as a proof.

What to do with the 2000-week D DMPL? Will PCGS even give a DMPL grade for a modern or do they just chalk this up as an error?

OAKSTAR

I've seen business struck Kennedy's buffed out that look like proofs. But if it is what you think it might be, it would probably be a non-starter. It looks severely damaged from here.

DelawareDoons

Polished to heck.

jmlanzaf

Polished to heck.

[Mimicry is the highest firm of flattery.]

For the record, DMPL doesn't mean shiny. It had to have contrast between the devices and the fields like a cameo proof. Even if that coin weren't polished to heck, it's not DMPL.

jmlanzaf

@Tramp said:
This Kennedy appeared not to have a MM, but viewed nearly horizontally, the D MM can be seen slightly. IMO both the obverse and reverse dies had to be heavily laden with grease to get this whole coin DMPL effect. Even the first T "Trust" is difficult to make out. It has as much mirror effect as a proof.

What to do with the 2000-week D DMPL? Will PCGS even give a DMPL grade for a modern or do they just chalk this up as an error?

Archiving

lilolme

@jmlanzaf said:

For the record, DMPL doesn't mean shiny. It had to have contrast between the devices and the fields like a cameo proof. Even if that coin weren't polished to heck, it's not DMPL.

.
While DMPL doesn't mean shiny - The DMPL is determined by the reflectivity of the fields. A DMPL does not have to have any cameo to be a DMPL. Some of the later dates of the Morgan series are known for grey DMPL. From the HIghfill book which references Bruce Amspacher and Wayne Miller.

"A gray brilliant prooflike is distinguished by a subdued luster. Although reflective, such coins will not evidence the full brilliance of a cameo or brilliant prooflike dollar. There will be no contrast between fields and devices. Gray brilliant prooflikes are not to be confused with impaired or dull proof like pieces, since the subdued luster of the former is the result of mint processes, and not to mistreatment after the coins had left the mnt."

PCGS definition for DMPL:
https://www.pcgs.com/grades#gradeDMPL

A later date DMPL Morgan with grey appearance from coinfacts.

jmlanzaf

@lilolme said:

@jmlanzaf said:

For the record, DMPL doesn't mean shiny. It had to have contrast between the devices and the fields like a cameo proof. Even if that coin weren't polished to heck, it's not DMPL.

.
While DMPL doesn't mean shiny - The DMPL is determined by the reflectivity of the fields. A DMPL does not have to have any cameo to be a DMPL. Some of the later dates of the Morgan series are known for grey DMPL. From the HIghfill book which references Bruce Amspacher and Wayne Miller.

"A gray brilliant prooflike is distinguished by a subdued luster. Although reflective, such coins will not evidence the full brilliance of a cameo or brilliant prooflike dollar. There will be no contrast between fields and devices. Gray brilliant prooflikes are not to be confused with impaired or dull proof like pieces, since the subdued luster of the former is the result of mint processes, and not to mistreatment after the coins had left the mnt."

PCGS definition for DMPL:
https://www.pcgs.com/grades#gradeDMPL

A later date DMPL Morgan with grey appearance from coinfacts.

I don't so much mean that it has to be fully cameo but that it must have contrast. I've never seen a DMPL that had reflective devices. Is there such a thing?

AUandAG

Do you not see all the little parallel polishing lines that run east-west? This coin has been artificially enhanced to try, in a failed attempt, to make it look better. Spend it.
bob

lilolme

@jmlanzaf said:

@lilolme said:

@jmlanzaf said:

For the record, DMPL doesn't mean shiny. It had to have contrast between the devices and the fields like a cameo proof. Even if that coin weren't polished to heck, it's not DMPL.

.
While DMPL doesn't mean shiny - The DMPL is determined by the reflectivity of the fields. A DMPL does not have to have any cameo to be a DMPL. Some of the later dates of the Morgan series are known for grey DMPL. From the HIghfill book which references Bruce Amspacher and Wayne Miller.

"A gray brilliant prooflike is distinguished by a subdued luster. Although reflective, such coins will not evidence the full brilliance of a cameo or brilliant prooflike dollar. There will be no contrast between fields and devices. Gray brilliant prooflikes are not to be confused with impaired or dull proof like pieces, since the subdued luster of the former is the result of mint processes, and not to mistreatment after the coins had left the mnt."

PCGS definition for DMPL:
https://www.pcgs.com/grades#gradeDMPL

A later date DMPL Morgan with grey appearance from coinfacts.

I don't so much mean that it has to be fully cameo but that it must have contrast. I've never seen a DMPL that had reflective devices. Is there such a thing?

I don't know of reflective devices either. I was responding to this:

"It had to have contrast between the devices and the fields like a cameo proof. "

Which I gave a reference, pcgs definition and an example that this is not required for a DMPL. If you meant something else, then I was not able to interpret what it was.

gumby1234

Whizzed. Worth face value.

Shane6596

@jmlanzaf said:

I don't so much mean that it has to be fully cameo but that it must have contrast. I've never seen a DMPL that had reflective devices. Is there such a thing?

I think a reverse proof would be close, but not exactly because the fields are frosted. The devices are mirrored.

I can't think of a mirrored field and devices that is legit.

Are there any reverse proofs with mirrored fields? Maybe someone has seen one.

Coinscratch

If it was it would be called PL. This one I just had graded and the reverse does have frosted devices whereas others listed in CoinFacts do not.

may

Only Morgans can be DMPL, as for the coin it was polished.

ricko

@Tramp .... Your coin has been severely polished and holds no numismatic value. Cheers, RickO