PCGS Has Stopped Attributing DMPL on Morgans
ProofCollection
Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭✭✭
Please forgive the hyperbole and clickbait, but I am going to make a case that PCGS has stopped issuing the DMPL designation for Deep Mirror Prooflike Morgan Dollars based on 3 recent submission results from the past month. This post is made in full recognition that submitting to PCGS is often an exercise in disappointment. I'm trying hard to make this as objective as possible although naturally the personal bias is hard to avoid. I think we all know dealers who are quick to say that "[TPG] got this one wrong" and you look at it and the dealer is the one who is wrong, and everyone thinks the coin "should have graded higher." I hope this can be presented objectively.
Unfortunately mirrors are extremely difficult to judge on-screen. Most collectors do not understand the mirror designations. There are lots of dealers on ebay who apparently think that coins with clean shiny fields are all PL and ever more people confuse cameo contrast with mirrors. PL and DMPL designations require clear reflection at 2-4" and 6+", respectively, per the PCGS grading videos. As far as evaluating with pictures, nice black fields are often an indication of how great the mirrors and it is not 100% reliable, but it I've found it rare for an honestly-photographed coin with deep dark fields to not have great mirrors.
I have been working on my PL Morgan collection for over 15 years and am the current #2 & #3 Prooflike-only registry set where I will be topped out until DL Hansen retires his set, if ever. I'd like to think I have a pretty good expertise in evaluating Morgan dollar mirrors. I have PCGS DMPL coins that don't probably don't deserve the designation. There are coins that are somewhere in the middle of PL and DMPL, and then there are coins that are clearly DMPL. PL/DMPL coins in older NGC and PCGS holders many times do not deserve their designations but coins from the last decade are generally reliable to be PL or DMPL if they say they are (although I'm sure there's a few undeserving reholders around). All of the coins here are from recent holders.
Case #1:
This is the weakest case of the 3. A former NGC 1880-S MS64 DPL, This coin IMO is easily DMPL. I cracked it out and submitted it raw. This coin has a fantastic TV image with deep black fields usually indicative of DMPL. It came back MS65+PL. In hand, the mirrors are undeniable.
Case #2:
I submitted the below CAC-approved NGC 1885-CC MS65 DPL Morgan to PCGS for same-grade crossover and it came back DNC (Did not cross). You all can weigh in but the coin is solidly MS65 IMO so I have to assume it failed for mirrors although there is a chance PCGS thought is was 64 or less. Again, I believe the coin is solidly 65 and DMPL. I've also submitted several DMPL Morgans to CAC for stickering and a common reason for rejection is insufficient mirrors. I know JA doesn't sticker DMPL Morgans with insufficient mirrors and he clearly thinks it's at least MS65 and DMPL. But in this case, PCGS clearly disagreed and would not straight-cross it.
Case #3:
I submitted for crossover an NGC MS62+DPL Morgan at any grade. It came back 62PL. I submitted in-holder to avoid damaging the coin myself and hoping PCGS would see the current grade and just agree with it. Not only does it have the + designation from NGC which requires extra eye appeal, the Heritage description states, "The coin is brilliant and well struck, with ample field reflectivity and modest cameo effect on each side." On top of that, respected member @MFeld saw the coin and opined, "I think the DPL is fully deserved." and "has excellent eye-appeal." When I received the coin from Heritage I was thrilled because I could see it was solidly DMPL without question and not a borderline PL/DMPL question mark. I also knew it was very nice for MS62 so I'm disappointed to lose the + but that's something I can accept but it makes you wonder how amazing a coin needs to be to get a 62+ grade if this isn't it.
And here's a video comparing a CAC DMPL to this "PL." To make the video I taped an NGC cert label to my cell phone camera which is what you're seeing in the reflection in both cases. I think the CAC DMPL reflection looks very comparable.
https://youtube.com/shorts/PckIVunlCSc
So the takeaway here is, if you want to regrade a PCGS DMPL Morgan, don't risk cracking it out.
Comments
ngc standards for dmpl are definitely different than pcgs'
Nicely written rebuttal to questionably graded coins with plenty of bona fides.
Unfortunately, like many of our complaints, this is unlikely to accomplish anything. Hopefully some commiseration will make you feel a bit better.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I guess you can have a good TrueView or a good designation, but not both.
quick find from 2005
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/419157/morgan-dmpl-anacs-vs-pcgs-vs-ngc
I'm not sure you read my whole post. The NGC designation was just a small part of the justification for this post.
http://ProofCollection.Net
It may be strictness or arbitrariness. Even if was an NGC gold cac DPL, all bets would be off on a PCGS agreement.
Agreed. Did you miss the part where CAC agreed with the designation and other respected forum members agreed with the designations and the photos and videos? When you have not one but multiple opinions and data points all saying the coins are DMPL and PCGS does not, does that not make a compelling argument? I thought I made a good effort to not make this a "PCGS disagrees with NGC" post by including the additional opinions and information. I guess I didn't do a very good job.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I'm not sure you can do this historically, but if you grab pop report info every week or two, you could see how many regular, PL, and DMPL coins are getting graded in each interval. Sure, there's going to be some variation based on what's sent in, but I'd imagine that over time the spread of coins sent in is pretty similar (especially with how many Morgans I imagine are submitted). From that, changes in rates that you see PL/DMPL designations accrue would show if the designations are being given out more or less frequently on the whole, or if you may have gotten unlucky.
If you can't go back in time, though, this becomes less useful since it seems that you really want to see how frequently DMPLs were given out 6 months or a year or two ago, not just now and 3 months from now. Maybe for a given date you could find references to pop reports in auction records and build out some trends.
I don’t think any of the TPG’s like to cross their competition. Just a personal opinion.
In light of recent events concerning ongoing, various issues with submissions, I’m inclined to give OP the benefit of the doubt here, and based on the photos I agree with the overall assessments. Ironically, the true views are actually pretty good, but I’m sure that when you’re able to get them designated correctly, the new ones will be far inferior 😅.
I have also heard many are experiencing issues with variety attribution lately, a dealer who specializes in them had a submission where they came back undesignated at all, despite paying for the service and correctly identifying them on the submission form.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Great post, sorry to hear the unfortunate outcome. 🫤
You laid out the facts and made your point(s) well, but reading comprehension is sometimes an elusive skill here.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Not forgiven. Your clickbait amounts to misinformation.
It’s unfortunate and among a handful of reasons I’m not inclined to submit anything anytime soon.
I’m not sure if the photo or registry issues will be resolved but grading could swing back after a period of being “too conservative” and in the meantime you might be able to find some dmpl in PL holders (still won’t be easy but there could be some more out there in auctions).
Gold dollars too
Grading is subjective, that's all you need to remember. Oh and the TPG's understand that repeat submissions will earn them more money. What else is there to know
Lovely coins.
PL/DMPL is one of those designations where the wrong grading team can screw you. It kinda is what it is, and sometimes you gotta resubmit.
FWIW, you seem to be more than correct from my perspective.
Coin Photographer.
A certain leading TPG will be reluctant to straight-cross from a perceived 'lesser' competitor. It is similar to showing your own hand in poker. So now you've just lowered your standard to thiers if you dare to cross equally. The slightest weakness projected, or potential scrutiny risk , legit or not, will earn a DNC in no time, with no explanation given...
One TPG has this dilemma quite often. The other TPG? Not so much.
I believe that where this PCGS Forum is concerned it is impossible for PCGS grade coins properly. I've been here for 20+ years and heard people go on and on ad nauseum that PCGS over grades, under grades, misses varieties, misses designations and any other additions you might make. This is a new one: they no longer attribute Morgan Dollars DMPL!!
I am left wondering why some members here bother to submit coins to PCGS for grading when all they do is complain about the results. I remember lurking here for several months before I joined. My first comment was short and succinct in a thread about a similar topic. It went something like "The graders at PCGS have seen far more coins then most of us, I think they have a better idea of how to grade than we do."
I still hold to that notion all these years later.
Disagree.
As PCGS has tightened grading they will be .less likely to allow a borderline DMPL through the system.
Those are very nice PL coins, but the true definition, clarity and depth of mirror criteria has not been met. Bear in mind, the loose grading of yesteryear, and especially some OGH DMPL errors have skewed our expectations.
Interesting post. Can't figure out why people can't grasp you made a facesious thread title, but I enjoyed the read. My skills at grading morgans are old and weak but your argument for the DMPL designation seems justified.
I personally have submitted very few coins but can sympathize with the punch in the stomach feeling when you are given results that defy explanation. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, sure looks like a duck. "Nice Goose!" James
Great looking coins, bummer none met your grade expectations. Always difficult to judge from photos, but coins 1 & 3 seem to have a PL reverses. Although coin 2 had the CAC sticker, at first glance I thought it was a 64+ with the little chatter and blotchy toning. The most DMPL of the group. CAC likes original but I can see why some folks could judge toning a decrement to grade and eye appeal. JMHO.
Huh, do you have a link? Closest I can find but neither of these matches your description.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Lately I've had to submit a few early walkers twice to get straight grades. In one case a cleaning magically disappeared, and in the most recent some "damage" magically disappeared. (in neither case did I think a cleaning nor damage was evident.)