Restoration Before and After: 9 Morgans, 1 SBA

ProofCollection

Made a pretty big restoration submission for the purpose of improving the appearance of my coins. I know some of you like them old and yellow and crusty, but I like them bright and white. I wasn't expecting any upgrades but got a VERY nice surprise one of them that I'll start with.

1899-S MS62DMPL --> MS63DMPL
This one must look great in hand but the gash on the cheek and jaw should have left this at 62 or 62+ but the fields are pretty clean. I'm not sure what's going on with the old photo, it was a trueview photo from 10-ish years ago.
Before:

After:

1879-S MS64DMPL
Was really hoping to clean up the 3:00 to 6:00 fields. Still it looks like the mirrors overall are much clearer.
Before:

After:

1880-CC 8/L7 MS63DMPL
Before:

After:

1880/9-S MS64DMPL
Not real sure why the reverse field bottom half is cloudy. Disappointed this couldn't be cleared up but figured it probably wouldn't. Still I'm happy to clean up the "rust."
Before:

After:

1885-O MS64DMPL
Much happier with the cleaner/deeper fields.
Before:

After:

1897-S MS63DMPL
Before:

After:

1898-S MS62DMPL
Before:

After:

1902-O MS63DMPL
Before:

After:

1900-O MS64PL
Before:

After:

1981-S SBA Type 2 PR70DCAM
Got this one at a good discount. Thought it would clean up better. This is much improved but far from where it needs to be. I have to believe PCGS did the best they could but it also seems like another restoration attempt could improve it further.
Before:


After:

logger7

Very nice, high end coins. I'm curious if you calculated the economic benefit with the results?

ProofCollection

@logger7 said:
Very nice, high end coins. I'm curious if you calculated the economic benefit with the results?

That wasn't the point of the submission. At roughly $50-60/coin cost, in most cases this is 5-10% of the guide value of the coins. I believe at auction these coins would sell for 5-10% more than they would have before as DMPL collectors love the deeper mirrors and higher contrast. Overall my intent was to improve the appearance of the coins and breakeven (per my earlier statement of being able to sell them for slightly more some day), although these probably won't be sold any time soon unless I upgrade them. The upgrade of the first coin though means I came out way ahead, but that was unexpected.

Morgan13

Very nice looking group of coins. Certainly looks like PCGS did a good job on conserving your coins for you.
They look much better.
I'm happy for you.

SanctionII

The coins do look better after restoration.

Since a large part of my collection is 20th century proof coinage (with frosted devices and mirrored fields) I am familiar with improving the appearance of proof coinage (myself or PCGS) through removing haze and negative toning. When doing so is successful the result is a very attractive coin that is is a Cameo or has a Cameo appearance.

I am not familiar with PL and DMPL circulation strike MS Morgans. Looking at the before and after photos in the OP, I need to shift my thinking away from proof coinage. If I do not make that shift, I end up viewing the before and after photos of the Morgans as not very impressive (impaired fields lacking a mirrored finish; and multiple marks, dings, hits, etc. on the fields and devices).

Also, the majority of the displayed Morgans are graded with a designation of DMPL (which in my mind is/should be the equivalent of a DCAM designation). If there is such an equivalency I would disagree with the DMPL designation being awarded to the Morgans. The degree of frost on the devices and the degree of contrast with the fields shown on the DMPL Morgans would most likely result in neither a DCAM or even a CAM designation awarded to these coins if they were Proofs.

Can someone with substantial experience with PL and DMPL Morgans educate me on that area of the hobby and how it is similar or not similar to 19th and 20th century proof coinage? I would appreciate being educated so that I can improve my hobby knowledge base.

ProofCollection

@SanctionII said:
The coins do look better after restoration.

Since a large part of my collection is 20th century proof coinage (with frosted devices and mirrored fields) I am familiar with improving the appearance of proof coinage (myself or PCGS) through removing haze and negative toning. When doing so is successful the result is a very attractive coin that is is a Cameo or has a Cameo appearance.

I am not familiar with PL and DMPL circulation strike MS Morgans. Looking at the before and after photos in the OP, I need to shift my thinking away from proof coinage. If I do not make that shift, I end up viewing the before and after photos of the Morgans as not very impressive (impaired fields lacking a mirrored finish; and multiple marks, dings, hits, etc. on the fields and devices).

Also, the majority of the displayed Morgans are graded with a designation of DMPL (which in my mind is/should be the equivalent of a DCAM designation). If there is such an equivalency I would disagree with the DMPL designation being awarded to the Morgans. The degree of frost on the devices and the degree of contrast with the fields shown on the DMPL Morgans would most likely result in neither a DCAM or even a CAM designation awarded to these coins if they were Proofs.

Can someone with substantial experience with PL and DMPL Morgans educate me on that area of the hobby and how it is similar or not similar to 19th and 20th century proof coinage? I would appreciate being educated so that I can improve my hobby knowledge base.

As I collect proofs as well, I can tell you that the main difference between CAM/DCAM and DMPL/PL is the contrast requirement. As you note, the MS coins did not receive the special handling that proof coins receive so as a result you end up with coins with lots of marks and dings that you don't often see with proofs.

Morgan13

DMPL Morgan's are typically the first coins to be made from a freshly polished die. Proof like coins follow. They aren't made to be this way its just the way the manufacturing of the coins go. Also the fields tend to magnify every single tiny nick as they are dropped and put into bags.
They weren't handle in any way like a proof set.
In my opinion they are a miracle of survival.
This is why they are highly coveted and sought after. They can also get pretty expensive.

ProofCollection

@Morgan13 said:
DMPL Morgan's are typically the first coins to be made from a freshly polished die. Proof like coins follow. They aren't made to be this way its just the way the manufacturing of the coins go. Also the fields tend to magnify every single tiny nick as they are dropped and put into bags.
They weren't handle in any way like a proof set.
In my opinion they are a miracle of survival.
This is why they are highly coveted and sought after. They can also get pretty expensive.

LOL. The OG "First Strike." - Back when being struck first mattered.

Morgan13

I've shown this Morgan before but I think it's about as nice as a circulation strike can get. I believe it's very close to DMPL. I can see pretty darn far in these mirrors.
Afew more to liven up the thread.

MFeld

@Morgan13 said:
I've shown this Morgan before but I think it's about as nice as a circulation strike can get. I believe it's very close to DMPL. I can see pretty darn far in these mirrors.
Afew more to liven up the thread.

You think it’s “about as nice as a circulation strike can get”, even when compared to numerous examples graded 68 and higher?

Bigtree

Nice results overall, thanks for sharing! Always enjoy the before/after threads.

@ProofCollection I suspect that PCGS opted not to restore a couple of these coins (the SBA, the 79-S, and perhaps the 1900-O). Have you checked the invoice to confirm? Only the coins that show a restoration fee have been restored; the others are regraded (a recent policy change that I still don’t understand).

I recently got back a couple coins that I thought had been restored but when I looked at my invoice I realized they weren’t.

ProofCollection

@Bigtree said:
Nice results overall, thanks for sharing! Always enjoy the before/after threads.

@ProofCollection I suspect that PCGS opted not to restore a couple of these coins (the SBA, the 79-S, and perhaps the 1900-O). Have you checked the invoice to confirm? Only the coins that show a restoration fee have been restored; the others are regraded (a recent policy change that I still don’t understand).

I recently got back a couple coins that I thought had been restored but when I looked at my invoice I realized they weren’t.

I'm well aware of this. The invoice hasn't posted yet. But looking at the photos I am 99% sure they were all restored as I can see distinct differences in all of them. The SBA is definitely better, the before picture is not bad photography. I just wonder if they took it as far as they could go.

Bigtree

@ProofCollection said:

@Bigtree said:
Nice results overall, thanks for sharing! Always enjoy the before/after threads.

@ProofCollection I suspect that PCGS opted not to restore a couple of these coins (the SBA, the 79-S, and perhaps the 1900-O). Have you checked the invoice to confirm? Only the coins that show a restoration fee have been restored; the others are regraded (a recent policy change that I still don’t understand).

I recently got back a couple coins that I thought had been restored but when I looked at my invoice I realized they weren’t.

I'm well aware of this. The invoice hasn't posted yet. But looking at the photos I am 99% sure they were all restored as I can see distinct differences in all of them. The SBA is definitely better, the before picture is not bad photography. I just wonder if they took it as far as they could go.

Great, I stand corrected. Glad that you’ve avoided my predicament!

lilolme

@SanctionII said:
The coins do look better after restoration.

I am not familiar with PL and DMPL circulation strike MS Morgans. Looking at the before and after photos in the OP, I need to shift my thinking away from proof coinage. If I do not make that shift, I end up viewing the before and after photos of the Morgans as not very impressive (impaired fields lacking a mirrored finish; and multiple marks, dings, hits, etc. on the fields and devices).

Also, the majority of the displayed Morgans are graded with a designation of DMPL (which in my mind is/should be the equivalent of a DCAM designation). If there is such an equivalency I would disagree with the DMPL designation being awarded to the Morgans. The degree of frost on the devices and the degree of contrast with the fields shown on the DMPL Morgans would most likely result in neither a DCAM or even a CAM designation awarded to these coins if they were Proofs.

Can someone with substantial experience with PL and DMPL Morgans educate me on that area of the hobby and how it is >similar or not similar to 19th and 20th century proof coinage? I would appreciate being educated so that I can improve my >hobby knowledge base.

.
I don't know that I make substantial experience with PL and DMPL Morgans but your perception of DMPL to DCAM or CAM is not correct.

Starting with PL and DMPL they are measures of filed reflectivity on MS coins. The DMPL being mostly Morgans as PCGS only recognizes the PL on most other coin series (not sure what other series DMPL might be recognized at PCGS - any?).

Go to this page and select the applicable Designations to get a start on PCGS requirements for PL and DMPL. It also has initial information for CAM and DCAM.

https://www.pcgs.com/grades

A PL or DMPL can have a cameo device(s) or it could be a grey PL or DMPL where the device(s) is/are mostly the same color as the fields or something between. This does not impact the requirements for a PL or DMPL. It probably will impact the desirability and/ or cost of the PL or DMPL as a white (on silver) cameo may be more desirable than a grey (little to no contrast) PL or DMPL. Also the amount of contrast on PL / DMPL from one year or mint (mark) can vary significantly with some not normally having notable cameo and other having much more.

As noted above can go to the above page to see that a CAM or DCAM is a measure of the amount of contrast between the fields and devices on a Proof coin.

Here is a PCGS video on surface that has a little of both in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpEI3TMGzhg

Also the contact marks in the fields (or devices) of a PL or DMPL are a matter of grade (example 60, 63, 65...) as the coins were minted and then treated essentially the same as other coins made for circulation.

ProofCollection

@Bigtree said:

@ProofCollection said:

@Bigtree said:
Nice results overall, thanks for sharing! Always enjoy the before/after threads.

@ProofCollection I suspect that PCGS opted not to restore a couple of these coins (the SBA, the 79-S, and perhaps the 1900-O). Have you checked the invoice to confirm? Only the coins that show a restoration fee have been restored; the others are regraded (a recent policy change that I still don’t understand).

I recently got back a couple coins that I thought had been restored but when I looked at my invoice I realized they weren’t.

I'm well aware of this. The invoice hasn't posted yet. But looking at the photos I am 99% sure they were all restored as I can see distinct differences in all of them. The SBA is definitely better, the before picture is not bad photography. I just wonder if they took it as far as they could go.

Great, I stand corrected. Glad that you’ve avoided my predicament!

This time I did anyway. I had a prior submission where they declined to restore every coin. I made a "deal" with Cesar, a customer service manager that if I resubmit them and they restore them they'll refund the fees from the first submission.

winesteven

Like you, I’m part of the mostly silent group that prefers coins looking the way their designers envisioned they would look as they came off the press (but I’m not so silent, lol).

Congratulations! You’ve made a great case for using this under-utilized service!

Steve

slider23

You can put me in the category of collectors who like coins with original skin. I am not a fan of dipping to remove the toning. I do like the before 1902 O and 1885 O with the slight rim toning, than the after with the toning removed. The toning on the SBS was not very attractive, but it looks like the dip may have removed the top layer under the toning. Sometimes the mirrors on PL and DMPL will get a haze, and I can understand getting rid of the haze, so the mirrors have full reflective depth. The most important thing is that you are happy with the outcome. Congratulations on getting an upgrade on your 1899 S.

ProofCollection

@slider23 said:
You can put me in the category of collectors who like coins with original skin. I am not a fan of dipping to remove the toning. I do like the before 1902 O and 1885 O with the slight rim toning, than the after with the toning removed. The toning on the SBS was not very attractive, but it looks like the dip may have removed the top layer under the toning. Sometimes the mirrors on PL and DMPL will get a haze, and I can understand getting rid of the haze, so the mirrors have full reflective depth. The most important thing is that you are happy with the outcome. Congratulations on getting an upgrade on your 1899 S.

I do appreciate rim toning sometimes, but on the 02-O, look how the edge lettering and stars pop with contrast now instead of being muddled in. To each his own. There's a coin for every album.

coastaljerseyguy

Overall like the coins better, definitely the mirrors have greater depth. But on a couple think the negatives are exposed more, like the finger-prints on the 79-S. All nice coins, congrats on selecting such nice coins. What would be great is if you could post some pics in a year or so. Always wondered if the haze, etc would come back after conservation.

skamieniecki

Coins all look great. Are they now considered to be cleaned coins?

winesteven

@skamieniecki said:
Coins all look great. Are they now considered to be cleaned coins?

Coins that are dipped, or undergo similar treatments, technically are "Cleaned", as the resulting appearance is no longer "Original" (note the quotes). However, not only are these coins acceptable to the major TPG's, they're also fully acceptable to CAC, as long as the "treatment" is deemed to have been gentle enough for a coin in an appropriate grade.

Every coin of mine eligible for a CAC sticker has one, and the vast majority of those have probably been dipped, but apparently gently enough, that every one of them still merits a CAC sticker!

When coins are deemed "over-dipped", that's when they get "Detailed" as having been "Cleaned"!

Steve