Options
Does this gold dollar have a shot at a PL designation?
liefgold
Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭✭✭
I know it is hard to tell from photos , but it does have a cameo look. Just won it at auction, not in hand yet.
liefgold
2
Comments
Yes it has a shot if mirrored enough in hand.
And regardless, it is certainly a gorgeous example.
P.S. In theory the same standards that apply for Morgans should apply; however, my experience has been that NGC, PCGS, and CAC are not consistent in that. There is some variation with each series.
Beautiful coin. I’ll guess semi-PL.
The obverse may have a bit too much cartwheel/flowlines to make PL. Many, although not all, of the PL gold dollars on CoinFacts show more fully darkened or brightened fields in photos.
Also, there’s not a single PL in the PCGS pop for 1860. Not impossible to make the first, but I think it’ll have more scrutiny in the grading room without any precedent.
PL gold dollars are interesting. I went down a rabbit hole on the 1889. I have a semi-PL coin struck from the same dies as proofs. I also found (edit: while researching) at least one coin that went from a PL holder to a proof holder, and CAC’d in both 🤷♂️
Has a shot
Yes. A wonderful looking coin to
Your Avatar has more of a shot.
My initial reaction was to laugh. But your post was right on point - we can’t provide a solid answer based on just the images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was vague in my comments. Obviously any coin has a shot if mirrored in hand. What I meant is that the photos certainly suggest significant reflectivity of the fields. If sufficiently strong and if there are not significant patches of disruption by patches of frosty luster, then yes. I think the coin has a shot, but it is not a slam dunk. Based on the photos, I would feel comfortable describing it as at least semi PL.
Well, I thought so also, but my avatar failed when resubmitted. So I have a tough time guessing correctly.
Impressive cherrypick on a real proof!
What does the reverse look like? Do you have large obverse and reverse images or a video of it?
Oops, I didn’t mean to imply that it was my coin. I “found” it during my research. Nevertheless, an impressive upgrade for whomever owned it at the time.
Edit to add: not only that, but I am not convinced that the coin that upgraded to proof is actually a proof. But, I don’t want to derail your thread, so if others are interested in that, here’s the post: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1121578/hairlines-on-a-gem-cac-approved-gold-dollar-update-5-30-back-from-cac
.
deleted
I have a couple gold dollars that are designated as PL and this one looks better. Go figure.
Worthy of reconsideration?
Based on the images, while it’s flashing looking, I wouldn’t expect a PL designation for that coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for the input everyone.
I guess that is why there is none with PL at NGC or PCGS for the 1869, and one for the 1860.
Yes it has a shot at PL. Really nice coin.
I agree. Too much mint frost/luster. I could see calling the obverse semi PL.
^
Personally, I think the reverse is what held it back.
To the question of the op coin and from only the TV I think it would not be designated PL.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.