Binion DMPL Morgan- NGC using ACG standards?

DCAMFranklin

I saw this "special", pedigreed Binion label NGC Binion DMPL Morgan.

NGC's idea of DMPL

One of the higher grades I have seen with the pedigree Binion label. How NGC could streeeetch so far to call this DMPL, I will never understand. Oh that's right, with a few thousand Morgans to grade and all those grading fees involved, we can expect a few "favors" here and there.

kieferscoins

Could it be a bad scan? I think so.

Cameron Kiefer

braddick

To be fair, NGC labeled this one DPL not "DMPL" as you implied, and "fairness, part II" requires the obligatory- "PL coins are tough to show in scans..." (which is true).

I bet in person you would be more impressed.

tradedollarnut

With all due respect - if you can tell whether it's DMPL or not off of that scan, you've got inhuman eyes. Or more likely than not, prejudiced eyes.

tsacch

skanky pic? bad coin? I would want to see it in person before I say for sure....but by that pic it looks like a solid 65 maybe PL.

stman

Braddick, as far as I understand it. Ngc uses dpl for a dmpl coin.

stman

dragon

I have brought up the subject a couple times of the grading on those Binion dollars by NGC. From the several hundred I've seen in person, the grading on them was atrocious to say the least IMO. I saw a couple -S- mints in Binion MS68 holders that were not even 67s, some of the 67s were like nice 65s/weak 66s, and a couple of the DMPLs were barely even PL (regardless of the toning). NGC appears to have been extremely generous bordering on absurd on those Binion coins for one reason or another.

Dragon

DCAMFranklin

Tradedollarnut-
More like a prejudiced statement from your little keyboard. I have absolutely no prejudice against NGC. A very tacky and absurd statement. I own well over a hundred of their coins. I will grant that the scan is not of the best quality, however, the frost level on that coin is simply not worthy of the DMPL grade.

Braddick- DPL is NGC's designation for the DMPL coin.

tradedollarnut

No one can accurately grade from a good photo, let alone a garbage photo. It's accepted that NGC ****** the pooch on the Binion grading, but to point at that photo and use it as a specific example is ludicrous.

I know for a fact there are bad coins in all company's holders and am not defending NGC in this example. I'm questioning how anyone can point to that photo and tell anything beyond the fact that the seller doesn't know how to photograph a coin?!

dragon

The "frost level" is not a determining factor as to whether a coin is PL or DMPL, nor does a coin need to possess any cameo contrast to be designated a PL or DMPL. For example, nearly all dates after 1899 with the slight exception of the 1904-O have nearly zero contrast even in PL and DMPL, as well as many other dates in the Morgan series, such coins are termed brilliant PL/DMPL or grey brilliant PL/DMPL.

Dragon

Russ

<< <i>No one can accurately grade from a good photo >>



Strange. The originator of this thread said almost precisely the same thing just a couple days ago in another thread. I guess he is the exception.

Russ, NCNE

crito

This coin is in an NGC slab for a reason, if it were really a DMPL it would be in a PCGS slab NGC makes ACG look like PCI. duh.

DCAMFranklin

Russ-
Seems you suffer from a comprehension problem. Take a few moments and read my post once again, real slow. You will see that I made absolutely no attempt to grade the coin from that scan. I do question the coin's DMPL status. I absolutely stand by my statement about grading from a scan.

Tradedollarnut and many others agree with me about the grading of a coin by scan. You insist that you have that ability to "grade by scan". We simply chuckle!

Russ

<< <i>We simply chuckle! >>



Who's "we"? You and your imaginary little friend living in the same cardboard box with you under the bridge?

Russ, NCNE

Gilbert

Well Dragon, what is the determining factor, and pray tell, where might the brilliant PL/DMPL and/or grey PL/DMPL terminology originate? Have they always been in use or is it "insider" terminology?

Now come on guys, is NGC on the ball or not. I got it. The Binion coins don't count. Okay. The pendulum stopped swinging on those.

dragon

Gilbert,

The determination as to whether a Morgan is PL or DMPL is the depth of reflectivity in the fields only, the amount of frost on the devices (cameo contrast) doesn't matter although most collectors nearly always prefer PL and DMPL coins with at least some contrast (adds to the PL effect). Many dates in the series are all but unknown in cameo PL or DMPL, hence they are called brilliant prooflikes.

Dragon

dragon

Also Gilbert,

The terms brilliant and grey brilliant PL have been widely used since the 1960s and are not insider terms by any means.

Dragon

Placid

joemon2

It's tough to judge the coin's reflectivity by the scan but NGC was very generous in grading the Binion coins that I have seen. I own 4 MS64 examples that are acurately graded but some of the 66 & 67 coins are over-graded by at least 1 point.

CalGold

Gee Russ, after your recent photo posts I would have thought you'd be leading the "can't grade by a photograph" bandwagon.

And lets not bring the people under the bridge into this thread.

Dog97

DCAMFranklin what's your disagreement with the grade? If it's with the PL designation nobody can tell thge quality of the mirrors from the scan. You have to measure how many inches away newsprint is readable in the fields. None of us can hold a ruler & newspaper up to our computer monitors to read how deep the mirrors are. If it was a large enough scan I could tell you the numerical grade no problem. The only thing I can tell from that pict is that it's a 1887 Morgan with a big black stripe on the obv.

Gilbert

Dragon,

First let me apologize for being so sacrastic in my post(s) yesterday. It hampers effective communication, and I know better.

I know that the PL/DMPL designation are determined by the amount of reflectivity in the fields. In all honesty, to me anyway, reflective fields almost aways create a contrast, and thus a "cameo effect" to the eye, and so your outright dismissal of "cameo contrast" seemed to hinge entirely on the use/or misuse of the term.

It is for that reason I followed up with the brilliant v grey PL/DMPL inquiry. I have yet to actually read or here anyone use the terms the way you espouse it in the previous thread. I tend to try and verify things before I accept them as somewhat factual, particularly when it seems contrary to what I've already learned.

I know proofs are categorized DCAM, CAM and Brilliant; I know that brilliant is also used describing UNC coins too, and I'm sure there is other usage, most I can find in one list of definitions or another. I don't want to give anyone a false impression, so, I would like to be able to refer to something other than "well that is what Dragon says" should someone as me "Is there a specific term to describe the variance(s) of contrast present on PL and DMPL Morgans?" Now brilliant prooflike, I believe I can substantiate, and I suppose I can say it has dull mirrors and looks gray - but - I don't won't to tell somebody that such and such is accepted terminology without a reference. So please help me in that manner. I mean that is my intent, to share what I know and what I learn.

Placid, unless you responded while I was typing this post, then "give us some commentary". Are you just happy with your coin, are you not happy with it, are you disputing the grade and/or designation - what's the deal? I've kinda' misplaced my extra-sensory perception powers.

radiofrek

Placid
I think I have Morgan envy

tradedollarnut

What does this picture of a DMPL prove?

PCGS's Idea of a DMPL

Pretty much the same as the first picture of an NGC DPL - that the seller can't take good photos!

CalGold

Gilbert,

I am not attempting to answer for Dragon, who knows Morgans better than me, but I think what he was saying is that the term "brilliant" or grey brilliant" has been used for many years to described PL and DMPL Morgans that do not display frosted devices, thus no cameo contrast. I do not know the derivation of the usage of those terms, or how long they have been used, but Wayne Miller uses those terms to describe proof-like dollars in his Morgan and Peace Dollar book, that was first published back in the 1970s. So the usage has been around for a long time.

Gilbert

CalGold, thanks for the direction.

I guess there are those of the Miller school of thought, and those of the Van Allen Mallis school of thought, and it is apparent that Dragon and I are from the two different schools of thought.

I have reviewed Miller's usage, and it appears that it is just that - Miller's usage. I am not trying in imply anything other than, so far, that is the only place I can seem to find it used. Well I should include Dragon and yourself. Essentially, you have provided the answer I was looking for, a reference source. So in the future should the issue come up, I can at least indicate that this is the way Miller categorized proof-like coins. I respect Wayne Miller as a dollar enthusiast and author; I just believe that the VAM publication, is more widely used and familiar, within my circles anyway, and when I introduce something that cannot be found there, I need to support it.

Thanks

Morganluver

Van Allen and Mallis use the term "brilliant" when refering to the contrast(or lack of)on a number of the later date Morgans in PL or DMPL. Dean F. Howe in his book "Morgan Dollars An In Depth Study" also defines the terms Brilliant and Grey-Brilliant refering to PLs and DMPLs.