Home U.S. Coin Forum

I just got my grades back. How did this not get DMPL?

I'm just very disappointed that this didn't get a DMPL grade. I have plenty dmpl Morgans and this one is more "mirrorry," if you know what I mean. PCGS was pretty strict on this submission. Your thoughts? It is MS63PL.

Comments

  • blitzdudeblitzdude Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks about right to me. RGDS!

    The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.

  • sellitstoresellitstore Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Excellent cameo contrast due to very frosty devices but fields aren't mirror-like enough to warrant DMPL designation.

    Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan Posts: 2,480 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That’s a DMPL you would find in an old holder when the standard were more relaxed with those, modern day PL looks about right.

  • This is from the same sub. I was thinking this was PL, but only got straight MS64. I think DeplorableDan is right. I'm still going by older standards.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,750 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It can be very difficult to ascertain whether a coin is PL or DMPL, based just on images. However, from what I can see, I wouldn't have considered that the 1883-O might be DMPL.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorry @MFeld , this is an extraordinarily deep cut but anyone who gets it will be beyond delighted. Can't help myself.

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 22,858 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 79-S doesn't have enough contrast with the obverse and reverse lettering for the PL.
    Neat coin though regardless and honestly, wouldn't you rather have a coin that you think is slightly
    undergraded/(under appreciated) rather than one that is slightly overgraded?

    peacockcoins

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,368 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:
    The 79-S doesn't have enough contrast with the obverse and reverse lettering for the PL.
    Neat coin though regardless and honestly, wouldn't you rather have a coin that you think is slightly
    undergraded/(under appreciated) rather than one that is slightly overgraded?

    Contrast is not a requirement for PL/DMPL. That’s only true for proof CAM/DCAM. Reflectivity of the fields is all that matters.

    The 79-S looks PL to me, but I’m not shocked it didn’t get the designation as the reverse looks borderline. As for the first coin in this post, the obverse looks like a strong PL but the reverse looks weaker.

  • rheddenrhedden Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2024 4:59AM

    Trying to split hairs between PL and DMPL was a major reason I quit collecting DMPL Morgans back in 2002 or so. The swings in value over slight differences in grade are enormous, at least on paper. When a marginal coin makes DMPL or DPL at a TPG, sellers are rarely willing to part with it for the PL price. If you bought it, then you're the seller of the marginal coin the next time around, and you paid the higher price. Good luck.

    If a marginal DMPL coin is given PL status by a TPG, it's often (usually?) broken out and sold raw as DMPL. It's sold in the PL holder at a show/auction, broken out, photographed with a black background, and listed on Ebay as Monster DMPL+++++ Looook. Here's an idea: loooook for an above-average coin in the original PL holder and ignore the raw DMPL listings.

    A DMPL 1879-s doesn't have the same kind of surfaces as a DMPL 1885-O or 1887-P. What does a DMPL 1903-P look like? Is it even a thing? It wouldn't even get a look for DMPL if it was dated 1879-s and had the same surfaces.

    On top of all of this mess, you have to account for slight differences in numerical grades and grading standards causing large swings in price. Now you have CAC vs. non-CAC vs. whose TPG certified it on top of all the other pricing problems.

    What a mess. Do I like collecting coins or arguing over prices and grading? I'd rather collect circ. large cents or Seated/Bust material.

  • Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2024 7:24AM

    I feel your pain. I understand where your coming from. It's even worse when you submit a Morgan thinking it PL (comparing it to similar) and it doesnt even make PL
    I would say without trying to sound abrasive, consider yourself lucky you received the PL designation. I believe you when you say it looks DMPL in hand. I have around 50 PL Morgan's and many of them look DMPL to me.
    Cracking it out and resubmitted it is far to risky for reasons I have already explained.
    Enjoy your coin. It looks nice to me.

    Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars

  • LuxorLuxor Posts: 398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1) It's near impossible to determine PL from DMPL on most photos. I've got mile deep DMPL's that barely appear PL in the photos.

    2) In addition to the PCGS standard for PL / DMPL varying over the years and tightening considerably over the past 5-7 years or so IMO, many coins in older holders graded DMPL that now appear PL or even barely PL could also be because the coin was heavily dipped prior to submitting which attacks and diminishes the field reflectivity over time, and a coin holdered as DMPL may have been a true DMPL back when holdered in the 90's but now it isn't. I think it was a fairly common practice to dip even slightly toned borderline DMPL dollar prior to submitting back in the day to try and give the coin that extra 'pop', and the coin looked great and flashy for awhile and then degraded over time and may also have developed tiny black spots, etc.

    3) The DMPL standard is not applied equally among all dates in the series. As an example, a very scarce 21-D graded DMPL is never going to have the depth of fields of a common date CC in DMPL however it's considered a DMPL for a 21-D because it's the deepest they've seen for the date and/or has some degree of contrast.

    4) It's been my experience over the years that they have used both the PL and DMPL designation as a sort of a PQ for the grade add on, especially before the + designation was added. In the past, this meant that if a barely semi PL was a a 64++ they may have awarded it a 64PL grade, or a borderline very nice for the grade 64PL may have received a DMPL designation if it was close but not all there.

    These are my experiences and opinions only, but I've been collecting DMPL's since before PCGS even used the DMPL designation.

    Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.

  • CascadeChrisCascadeChris Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:
    The 79-S doesn't have enough contrast with the obverse and reverse lettering for the PL.
    Neat coin though regardless and honestly, wouldn't you rather have a coin that you think is slightly
    undergraded/(under appreciated) rather than one that is slightly overgraded?

    PL & DMPL are solely a measure of reflective clarity of the fields. Device to field contrast only comes into play when assessing proofs for the CAM/DCAM designation.

    The more you VAM..
  • braddickbraddick Posts: 22,858 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @david3142 said:

    @braddick said:
    The 79-S doesn't have enough contrast with the obverse and reverse lettering for the PL.
    Neat coin though regardless and honestly, wouldn't you rather have a coin that you think is slightly
    undergraded/(under appreciated) rather than one that is slightly overgraded?

    Contrast is not a requirement for PL/DMPL. That’s only true for proof CAM/DCAM. Reflectivity of the fields is all that matters.

    The 79-S looks PL to me, but I’m not shocked it didn’t get the designation as the reverse looks borderline. As for the first coin in this post, the obverse looks like a strong PL but the reverse looks weaker.

    @CascadeChris said:

    @braddick said:
    The 79-S doesn't have enough contrast with the obverse and reverse lettering for the PL.
    Neat coin though regardless and honestly, wouldn't you rather have a coin that you think is slightly
    undergraded/(under appreciated) rather than one that is slightly overgraded?

    PL & DMPL are solely a measure of reflective clarity of the fields. Device to field contrast only comes into play when assessing proofs for the CAM/DCAM designation.

    Ahhh, I blame it on brain fade.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    peacockcoins

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 7,475 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2024 5:51PM

    Not mirror enough for DMPL. The detracting tarnish may be another factor. Looks likes it’s fading into the sunset. No pizzaz for DMPL there. The doggie right tarnish smear at rt obv top - yuck. Bluesheet material?

    So Cali Area - Coins & Currency
  • logger7logger7 Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 5, 2024 4:03AM

    A guy at a local flea market last year had some raw Morgans he swore with go DPL and none of them did. Standards have tightened up on those. Had a guarantee submission with NGC where the coin got downgraded from DPL to PL.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file