There are 19 gold stickers across the whole Capped Bust Quarter series, and 2071 green stickers from 1815 to 1838. That means the gold sticker/green sticker ratio is 0.009 or 0.9%. Not very common unlike some of the series discussed above. Here is mine, compare it to my AU58 green of the same date below.
@JohnnyCache said:
A poster on Instagram who collects Morgan dollars noted the other day that for all the thousands of DMPL designated Morgan Dollars, only 7 have received a CAC gold sticker. PCGS alone has graded 48,028 DMPL Morgan's. That is a surprisingly tiny percentage of Morgan's with DMPL getting a gold sticker.
Based on some the points we discussed earlier, there is a pretty explanation for that doesn’t require too much speculation.
DMPL standards of old were significantly more relaxed during the old holder time period, when coins were most likely to be undergraded (compared to today).
The simplicity of grading Morgans prevents them from being undergraded very often, unlike nuanced issues that we’ve come to learn more about, and had to adjust the criteria over time.
“ Double liners” , or coins that are liners with both the numeric grade and the designation, are almost always given one of the two. For sample, a coin that’s like a 64/65 depending who you ask may also be right on the line for pl/dmpl. They will probably give it the one it’s closer too, but it will end up as either a 64DMPL or a 65PL. The 65PL grade ultimately is fitting with modern standards, but if they went 64pl then it will never CAC at all.
I've had enough feedback from my submissions of PL/DMPL coins and the most common reason is 'mirrors not deep enough.' This feedback has been invaluable as I now feel that I know how to properly assess mirrors. Really everyone should take a CAC DMPL and study it compared to a CAC-mirror-reject DMPL. You'll see the difference. It is astonishing how many dealers do no understand the designation. I cringe every time I see a dealer claim that 'got it wrong' or 'missed the mirrors' or just go ahead and claim that non-designated coins are indeed PL.
Unfortunately, this issue is a byproduct of wavering standards, or inconsistent application, however you want to phrase it. When you have a designation that's even more subjective than the numerical grade, and let the line wander over time, it'ssignificdantly affects the market in a negative way. This is one of those areas where CAC can save someone's ass if they don't know what they're doing.
The illegitimate DMPLs are valued too high
The illegitimate DMPLS are tied to the prices are tied to the prices of the fraudi.
The population report is skewed by the frauds, to what degree I don't know.
Novice collectors are easily explored with premium prices, not to mention the inevitable OGH tax on top.
Undermines confidence in TPG grading and erodes trust in their abilities. ultimately this reduces participation in collecting.
What do we think that Herman the hobbyist feels like when he takes his graded date set of DMPL gems that he. assembled decades ago to the local coin store for appraisal?. The dealer explains to him that 50% of them are only PL, 10% are nothing, and an additional 15% have PVC damage or wretched tarnish that might be able to be restored. He offers to buy the 25% for DMPL money but has to hedge on the rest of them and can only pay melt for the problem ones. I made those percentages up, but I'm sure an exchange such as this happens quite frequently around the country. This can put the dealer in a dubious situation with skittish customers, no matter how much integrity or honesty he has. That's because the his explanation is exactly the type of justification you'd hear from a shysty rip-artist, the script would be almost identical.
Just like anything in numismatics, there are many consequences from turning a "trait spectrum" into a binary designation. Subsequently it becomes the primary driver of value for the issue, ultimately taking the focus off the coin's appearance, and diminishing demand and value for the ones that didn't make the cut. Registry collectors must pass on a less expensive coin in the with superior overall strike, surface, and breathtaking colors, because it missing 5% more metal on the head. In no way am I criticizing the collector who set out to accomplish a goal and they enjoy it. It's part of the hobby now, but something about the TPG having that much influence on a coins value because of manufactured scarcity just doesn't feel right to me, and as a result I just don't collect coins with designations. If anything I might look for candidates to try upgrading for resale, but it would they probably just wholesale or send to GC rather than retail. I much prefer to place coins that I believe in, or would keep in my collection for extended period of time. Sometimes exceptions are made, but If I have a hard time justifying the price (in terms of history/coolness/scarcitry, not just APRs) , or telling its story with enthusiasm, I generally will avoid. This is why I gravitate towards absolute scarcity ainstead of conditional scarcity. Don't get me wrong, I will buy coins that are on the upper end of the range or close to top pop, but only on issues that I feel are fairly "safe" regarding dilution and hoards. Top pops scare me a bit, and sometimes I treat 20th century top pops like hot potatos depending on my degree of trepidation.
Thanks @TomB , never get tired of looking at her. This may come as a shock, but I'm not certain if it's my #1 anymore due to a recent purchase. It's close, but if not it's the runner up overall and bumping it to #3 would require some type of unicorn. It's #1 with respect to eye appeal , definitely the most vivid toning out of the group. It's gotta be up there on the history rankings too, I mean after all it is the first gold coin made in what is now known as California (Benicia).
IMO. this is one of those coins that needs a gold sticker in order for the coin to be valued properly, if that makes sense. The OG MS60 grade leaves too many unanswered questions, and a green sticker might have the same effect. As we go up ladder of value, assurances and failsafes start to become more of a necessity than a luxury.
It's just stunning and I can't imagine what might knock it off the perch of favorite coin. Similar to you, I have a short list of coins at the very top of what I've kept, but my pieces don't fly in the rarified air that yours reside. Each time I think of what my favorite pieces are, I end up with two immediately coming to mind as "locks" for the top positions and then another half-dozen or so that jockey for position to join them. So, I guess that means there are two pieces for me that stand alone.
One thing that complicates matters is that my collection bounces all over the place from gem type silver to mid-century with wonderful toning to better date circulated halves and dollars to medals to foreign. It makes for a bewildering array of what might be considered "the favorite" at any given moment.
It's just stunning and I can't imagine what might knock it off the perch of favorite coin. Similar to you, I have a short list of coins at the very top of what I've kept, but my pieces don't fly in the rarified air that yours reside. Each time I think of what my favorite pieces are, I end up with two immediately coming to mind as "locks" for the top positions and then another half-dozen or so that jockey for position to join them. So, I guess that means there are two pieces for me that stand alone.
One thing that complicates matters is that my collection bounces all over the place from gem type silver to mid-century with wonderful toning to better date circulated halves and dollars to medals to foreign. It makes for a bewildering array of what might be considered "the favorite" at any given moment.
I know how to take a hint Tom , I'm working on a new post so you can see it now, don't want to derail this discussion. It's your kind of coin though that's for sure.
What do we think that Herman the hobbyist feels like when he takes his graded date set of DMPL gems that he. assembled decades ago to the local coin store for appraisal?. The dealer explains to him that 50% of them are only PL, 10% are nothing, and an additional 15% have PVC damage or wretched tarnish that might be able to be restored. He offers to buy the 25% for DMPL money but has to hedge on the rest of them and can only pay melt for the problem ones.
>
This posting focused on DMPLs which is an enthusiastic; but, somewhat minor part of coin collecting. To me the major issue is PVC. While a dealer will catch those coins with significant PVC damage, most likely a dealer will miss the coins containing PVC because the grading services other than CAC/CACG are unable to catch most cases of it.
This posting focused on DMPLs which is an enthusiastic; but, somewhat minor part of coin collecting. To me the major issue is PVC. While a dealer will catch those coins with significant PVC damage, most likely a dealer will miss the coins containing PVC because the grading services other than CAC/CACG are unable to catch most cases of it.
Yes, while PVC is quite the nuisance and it plagues many older holdered coins, id much prefer buying a DMPL (without a doubt, black and white DMPL) with some light PVC haze than a PL masquerading as a DMPL in an older holder.
Most PVC can easily be removed without harm to the coin, but it depends how much of the value is because of the holder it's in. you'd have to be extremely naive to crack a certain starting with "1080" to take off some PVC. The rule of thumb for rather common coins in premium worthy, uncommon holders is that If it bothers you, sell it and buy another one. Someone else out there wants that coin in that holder, and could give a rats behind about the PVC.
On the other hand, If you bought a better date 65DMPL Morgan in a rattler, from sub-par images in an online auction, you may have just put yourself in a "sticky" situation. Let's assume you paid by wire and they won't budge on the return. You unbox the coin to find a conspicuous layer of PVC haze that cant be ignored, realizing you just joined a nation wide game of hot potato. You can either keep playing, or you can (have someone else) conserve it and risk losing 75% of your "investment" with minimal upside. This is why you'll see those same retreads offered for sale frequently. I hadn't thought about it until now, but I'm actually curious if anyones had luck with using the guarantee resubmission on one of those coins. As far as I know, those designations aren't excluded in writing, but I would expect TPG's to act like TPG's and find a way to avoid culpability.
Sorry for the rant, but the point is that PVC is a pernicious environmental complication that we cant control. Designations, more so the whimsical and inconsistent application of them, is a controllable and intentional part of grading with little room that can have serious consequences for the uninformed.
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
That's why I used the phrasing that I used - "can save someone's ass, not will save someone ass." And honestly if its got a cac sticker in a new holder, the collector want losing too much. My larger point was what you ended your paragraph with -
"Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall. "
Every TPG has their blunders, and there's exceptions to every rule, but I wasn't giving advice for the forum guys. That's why I used "Herman the Hobbyist"- People that might dip their toes in and build a collection, mess around on GC.Everyone starts as a hobbyist who potentially will bloom into a collection actor, but if their first experienc. CAC was one of there easiest examples to make the point, but I figured it would cost me another comment later ... ANY extra Opinions would be great for a newbie. CAC, MFeld and other auction numismatists, a friend, anything at all. For a DMPL listed at heritage, I would much rather be able to ask Mark, but most auction houses don't have a Mark.
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
Just because the top coin doesn't have the dark fields in the photo doesn't mean the coin does not meet strict DMPL standards. Some DMPLs photograph really well, some do not. I'm not sure how to explain why but I would have not doubt the top coin exhibits mirrors better than any of my CAC-mirror-rejected coins.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
Yet, isn't the sticker supposed to represent high end for the grade (that would include DMPL reflectivity)?
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
That's why I used the phrasing that I used - "can save someone's ass, not will save someone ass." And honestly if its got a cac sticker in a new holder, the collector want losing too much. My larger point was what you ended your paragraph with -
"Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall. "
Every TPG has their blunders, and there's exceptions to every rule, but I wasn't giving advice for the forum guys. That's why I used "Herman the Hobbyist"- People that might dip their toes in and build a collection, mess around on GC.Everyone starts as a hobbyist who potentially will bloom into a collection actor, but if their first experienc. CAC was one of there easiest examples to make the point, but I figured it would cost me another comment later ... ANY extra Opinions would be great for a newbie. CAC, MFeld and other auction numismatists, a friend, anything at all. For a DMPL listed at heritage, I would much rather be able to ask Mark, but most auction houses don't have a Mark.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
Yet, isn't the sticker supposed to represent high end for the grade (that would include DMPL reflectivity)?
No, it means "solid for the grade" so in the case of DMPL designation it's binary. It's either DMPL or it's not. It doesn't have to be "Ultra DMPL." Red cents don't have to be "extra" red.
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
Just because the top coin doesn't have the dark fields in the photo doesn't mean the coin does not meet strict DMPL standards. Some DMPLs photograph really well, some do not. I'm not sure how to explain why but I would have not doubt the top coin exhibits mirrors better than any of my CAC-mirror-rejected coins.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
I’d really like you to elaborate on your point about how “some DMPLs photograph really well”.
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
Just because the top coin doesn't have the dark fields in the photo doesn't mean the coin does not meet strict DMPL standards. Some DMPLs photograph really well, some do not. I'm not sure how to explain why but I would have not doubt the top coin exhibits mirrors better than any of my CAC-mirror-rejected coins.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
I’d really like you to elaborate on your point about how “some DMPLs photograph really well”.
To explain, by 'really well' I mean really attractively. The second photo above is an example of an attractive DMPL photograph showing nice dark fields and great cameo contrast. But not all DMPLs are like that. It also takes skill to take these photos of course. Here is my 1903 MS65PL CAC:
You can see the other PLs for this date look similar (although I don't know if they are CAC or not): https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1903-1-pl/images/7285
The DMPLs for this date are not much better looking but I would assume at least one of them would qualify for CAC as far as mirrors: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1903-1-dmpl/images/97285
Edited to add:
Here is my 1904-O MS65DMPL CAC:
Certainly not as pleasing to look at as the 1884-CC above, but the mirrors are there.
Comments
There are 19 gold stickers across the whole Capped Bust Quarter series, and 2071 green stickers from 1815 to 1838. That means the gold sticker/green sticker ratio is 0.009 or 0.9%. Not very common unlike some of the series discussed above. Here is mine, compare it to my AU58 green of the same date below.
Best, DM
.
@mattniss
VF35 gold CAC
1895-S in rattler?
That's the one and only (for now).
Unfortunately, this issue is a byproduct of wavering standards, or inconsistent application, however you want to phrase it. When you have a designation that's even more subjective than the numerical grade, and let the line wander over time, it'ssignificdantly affects the market in a negative way. This is one of those areas where CAC can save someone's ass if they don't know what they're doing.
The illegitimate DMPLs are valued too high
The illegitimate DMPLS are tied to the prices are tied to the prices of the fraudi.
The population report is skewed by the frauds, to what degree I don't know.
Novice collectors are easily explored with premium prices, not to mention the inevitable OGH tax on top.
Undermines confidence in TPG grading and erodes trust in their abilities. ultimately this reduces participation in collecting.
What do we think that Herman the hobbyist feels like when he takes his graded date set of DMPL gems that he. assembled decades ago to the local coin store for appraisal?. The dealer explains to him that 50% of them are only PL, 10% are nothing, and an additional 15% have PVC damage or wretched tarnish that might be able to be restored. He offers to buy the 25% for DMPL money but has to hedge on the rest of them and can only pay melt for the problem ones. I made those percentages up, but I'm sure an exchange such as this happens quite frequently around the country. This can put the dealer in a dubious situation with skittish customers, no matter how much integrity or honesty he has. That's because the his explanation is exactly the type of justification you'd hear from a shysty rip-artist, the script would be almost identical.
Just like anything in numismatics, there are many consequences from turning a "trait spectrum" into a binary designation. Subsequently it becomes the primary driver of value for the issue, ultimately taking the focus off the coin's appearance, and diminishing demand and value for the ones that didn't make the cut. Registry collectors must pass on a less expensive coin in the with superior overall strike, surface, and breathtaking colors, because it missing 5% more metal on the head. In no way am I criticizing the collector who set out to accomplish a goal and they enjoy it. It's part of the hobby now, but something about the TPG having that much influence on a coins value because of manufactured scarcity just doesn't feel right to me, and as a result I just don't collect coins with designations. If anything I might look for candidates to try upgrading for resale, but it would they probably just wholesale or send to GC rather than retail. I much prefer to place coins that I believe in, or would keep in my collection for extended period of time. Sometimes exceptions are made, but If I have a hard time justifying the price (in terms of history/coolness/scarcitry, not just APRs) , or telling its story with enthusiasm, I generally will avoid. This is why I gravitate towards absolute scarcity ainstead of conditional scarcity. Don't get me wrong, I will buy coins that are on the upper end of the range or close to top pop, but only on issues that I feel are fairly "safe" regarding dilution and hoards. Top pops scare me a bit, and sometimes I treat 20th century top pops like hot potatos depending on my degree of trepidation.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@PeakRarities you have just posted the original and only true Super Bird!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Thanks @TomB , never get tired of looking at her. This may come as a shock, but I'm not certain if it's my #1 anymore due to a recent purchase. It's close, but if not it's the runner up overall and bumping it to #3 would require some type of unicorn. It's #1 with respect to eye appeal , definitely the most vivid toning out of the group. It's gotta be up there on the history rankings too, I mean after all it is the first gold coin made in what is now known as California (Benicia).
IMO. this is one of those coins that needs a gold sticker in order for the coin to be valued properly, if that makes sense. The OG MS60 grade leaves too many unanswered questions, and a green sticker might have the same effect. As we go up ladder of value, assurances and failsafes start to become more of a necessity than a luxury.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Your coin is absolutely fabulous.
It's just stunning and I can't imagine what might knock it off the perch of favorite coin. Similar to you, I have a short list of coins at the very top of what I've kept, but my pieces don't fly in the rarified air that yours reside. Each time I think of what my favorite pieces are, I end up with two immediately coming to mind as "locks" for the top positions and then another half-dozen or so that jockey for position to join them. So, I guess that means there are two pieces for me that stand alone.
One thing that complicates matters is that my collection bounces all over the place from gem type silver to mid-century with wonderful toning to better date circulated halves and dollars to medals to foreign. It makes for a bewildering array of what might be considered "the favorite" at any given moment.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I know how to take a hint Tom
, I'm working on a new post so you can see it now, don't want to derail this discussion. It's your kind of coin though that's for sure.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
What do we think that Herman the hobbyist feels like when he takes his graded date set of DMPL gems that he. assembled decades ago to the local coin store for appraisal?. The dealer explains to him that 50% of them are only PL, 10% are nothing, and an additional 15% have PVC damage or wretched tarnish that might be able to be restored. He offers to buy the 25% for DMPL money but has to hedge on the rest of them and can only pay melt for the problem ones.
>
This posting focused on DMPLs which is an enthusiastic; but, somewhat minor part of coin collecting. To me the major issue is PVC. While a dealer will catch those coins with significant PVC damage, most likely a dealer will miss the coins containing PVC because the grading services other than CAC/CACG are unable to catch most cases of it.
Yes, while PVC is quite the nuisance and it plagues many older holdered coins, id much prefer buying a DMPL (without a doubt, black and white DMPL) with some light PVC haze than a PL masquerading as a DMPL in an older holder.
Most PVC can easily be removed without harm to the coin, but it depends how much of the value is because of the holder it's in. you'd have to be extremely naive to crack a certain starting with "1080" to take off some PVC. The rule of thumb for rather common coins in premium worthy, uncommon holders is that If it bothers you, sell it and buy another one. Someone else out there wants that coin in that holder, and could give a rats behind about the PVC.
On the other hand, If you bought a better date 65DMPL Morgan in a rattler, from sub-par images in an online auction, you may have just put yourself in a "sticky" situation. Let's assume you paid by wire and they won't budge on the return. You unbox the coin to find a conspicuous layer of PVC haze that cant be ignored, realizing you just joined a nation wide game of hot potato. You can either keep playing, or you can (have someone else) conserve it and risk losing 75% of your "investment" with minimal upside. This is why you'll see those same retreads offered for sale frequently. I hadn't thought about it until now, but I'm actually curious if anyones had luck with using the guarantee resubmission on one of those coins. As far as I know, those designations aren't excluded in writing, but I would expect TPG's to act like TPG's and find a way to avoid culpability.
Sorry for the rant, but the point is that PVC is a pernicious environmental complication that we cant control. Designations, more so the whimsical and inconsistent application of them, is a controllable and intentional part of grading with little room that can have serious consequences for the uninformed.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@PeakRarities
Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:
.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.
Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.
Coin Photographer.
DMPLness varies just like everything else with coins. Stronger DMPLs sell for more money.
That's why I used the phrasing that I used - "can save someone's ass, not will save someone ass." And honestly if its got a cac sticker in a new holder, the collector want losing too much. My larger point was what you ended your paragraph with -
"Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall. "
Every TPG has their blunders, and there's exceptions to every rule, but I wasn't giving advice for the forum guys. That's why I used "Herman the Hobbyist"- People that might dip their toes in and build a collection, mess around on GC.Everyone starts as a hobbyist who potentially will bloom into a collection actor, but if their first experienc. CAC was one of there easiest examples to make the point, but I figured it would cost me another comment later
... ANY extra Opinions would be great for a newbie. CAC, MFeld and other auction numismatists, a friend, anything at all. For a DMPL listed at heritage, I would much rather be able to ask Mark, but most auction houses don't have a Mark.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Just because the top coin doesn't have the dark fields in the photo doesn't mean the coin does not meet strict DMPL standards. Some DMPLs photograph really well, some do not. I'm not sure how to explain why but I would have not doubt the top coin exhibits mirrors better than any of my CAC-mirror-rejected coins.
Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.
Yet, isn't the sticker supposed to represent high end for the grade (that would include DMPL reflectivity)?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Absolutely agree with this.
Coin Photographer.
No, it means "solid for the grade" so in the case of DMPL designation it's binary. It's either DMPL or it's not. It doesn't have to be "Ultra DMPL." Red cents don't have to be "extra" red.
I’d really like you to elaborate on your point about how “some DMPLs photograph really well”.
Coin Photographer.
To explain, by 'really well' I mean really attractively. The second photo above is an example of an attractive DMPL photograph showing nice dark fields and great cameo contrast. But not all DMPLs are like that. It also takes skill to take these photos of course. Here is my 1903 MS65PL CAC:
You can see the other PLs for this date look similar (although I don't know if they are CAC or not):
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1903-1-pl/images/7285
The DMPLs for this date are not much better looking but I would assume at least one of them would qualify for CAC as far as mirrors:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1903-1-dmpl/images/97285
Edited to add:
Here is my 1904-O MS65DMPL CAC:
Certainly not as pleasing to look at as the 1884-CC above, but the mirrors are there.