ANACS question

sborder285

on e-bay i have seen many Morgans with a nice PL strike and what looks to be strong mirrors that have been graded without the PL designation. Comparing these ANACS graded coins to some of my own with this designation, i am almost sure that these coins should have gotten a PL designation. If i wanted to buy these coins and resubmit them, which service would i do it under, just send it in as a new coin, or use the variety verication( is PL even a variety?)

Thanx

Coin i bought graded PL

Coin i might buy which i believe should be graded PL

kyleknap

Many Morgans (esp. S-mint issues) have a proof-like appearance, but lack the depth and reflectivity required to garner the designation. If you are going to have any coins slabbed, PL or not, I would recommend PCGS. PL is not a variety but rather a grading designation, and they will put it on the holder if the coin is deserving.

Kyle

sborder285

sorry about that, at first i posted the same non-PL coin twice

BigAl

in my experience, PCGS has Recently become extremely tight on giving out PL designations----and DMPL coins that were once in older PCGS holders come back as PL in the new ones.... You need to have the coin in hand in order to determine if it'll go PL at pcgs. I recently submitted an ANACS MS65PL morgan to PCGS and it came back MS64, also an NGC MS63PL morgan that came back MS63 from PCGS.

sborder285

yea, i've noticed that with PCGS too. Is there a certain scale by witch PL or DMPL is determined?

Dog97

BigAl says: in my experience, PCGS has Recently become extremely tight on giving out PL designations----and DMPL coins that were once in older PCGS holders come back as PL in the new ones.... You need to have the coin in hand in order to determine if it'll go PL at pcgs. I recently submitted an ANACS MS65PL morgan to PCGS and it came back MS64, also an NGC MS63PL morgan that came back MS63 from PCGS.

That's nothing new BigAl, that has been going on for years. I attribute it to the coins being borderline PL/DMPL because if you send them back in again they come back DMPL. I've had the same coin go 65 DMPL, 65PL, then 64 DMPL, each time @ PCGS. And on different coins too. Sometimes they take away your designation & give you a bump in numerical grade. Not that I just waste my $$ cracking & resubmitting DMPL to see what PCGS will do to them but I used to make Capital Holder sets from crackouts. Then I'd get tired of them or upgrade a coin and get it slabbed again to sell it and so finally I quit cracking out DMPLs. I could almost guarantee that an ANACS DMPL would only make PL at PCGS and a nice PCGS PL would make DMPL at ANACS. I attribute that to PCGS being tighter in the quality of the relectivity rather than the relectivity in inches.

If you want a sure nuff nice DMPL in an ANACS holder you need to get an UDM designated one. (Ultra Deep Mirrors.)

kyleknap

Dog and Al are exactly right...

The difference in DMPLs between services is very noticeable. ANACS will take 6" for a DM, while PCGS wants 8."

Kyle

Merc

I don't see how a coin could go from PL to non PL. It either has a mirror surface, or it doesn't. I've owned several and I've never thought, gee I can't tell if this is Pl or not.

Some PL will have the mirror surface, but it will be slightly wavy like ripples on a pond. It reflect, but not as far. Then others are clear and reflect 5+ inches. These are the ones that can go PL to DMPL and back.

PCGS states in their grading book a DMPL morgan must reflect 6+ inches clearly. I'm not surewhat ANACS standards. I just bought one in an ANACS holder DMPL that reflects 8+ inches clearly. I'm going to send it in for a crossover to see what PCGS says.

BigAl

Dog, you may be correct, however I feel that while pcgs has become more liberal with respect to grade (since the early days), they've also become more stringent with regards to pl/dmpl designation. no shock that I believe this to generally hold true for pre-1989 coins (especially liners). but I also believe that more recent standards are weeding out these liner designations in the later green holders as well.

I believe blue label pcgs holders are graded tighter with respect to morgan pl or dmpl designations than any other pcgs holder---and without a doubt any other TPGS. of course i can't prove my suspicions, because the 25 or so PL morgans I submitted in the past year can no way be a representative sample...but i do sense a trend in the coins I've submitted. here's one recent example, not too long ago i cracked an 82-cc pcgs 63pl (green holder)--it came back a few weeks ago ms64--grade increased, lost desig. this same scenario has happened a number of times. As a result (whether justified or not---call me a sceptic) I've become very wary of PL's and dmpl's in rattler and green holders--especially when I don't have the coin in hand to judge myself.

kyleknap

If memory serves me correctly, in the first few months of grading PCGS simply designated all proof-like coins as 'PL.' The deep-mirror designation was not added until later. I've also seen many coins in early holders that really don't match up with today's standards.

Kyle

Merc

I found ANACS DMPL standards in an article written by Randy Campbell of ANACS.

"At ANACS, the term PROOFLIKE refers to a coin with a minimum of two to four inches of reflectivity of standard typewriter printing in the fields on both sides of the coin. The term DEEP MIRROR PROOFLIKE (or "DMPL") refers to a coin with a minimum of four to six inches of reflectivity on both sides of the coin.

At ANACS the term ULTRA DEEP MIRROR (or "UDM") refers to a coin with a minimum of 12 inches of reflectivity on both sides of the coins. Dollars with this depth of mirrors were called "headlights" or "across-the-room prooflikes" in the 1970's."

Dog97

Merc, DMPLs are crazy when you start cracking them out and regrading them because they are so subjective. I think you know that though so this is for everybody else's benefit. Not only is the numerical grade subjective as we all well know but so is the distance in inches and also the quality of the relectivity.
For example if the relectivity has any dead spots or distortion it will not be dsignated DMPL. If it has any dead spots it won't even be designated PL. Distortion is allowable on PL but precludes the DMPL designation.

You've heard all the talk about the graders being inconsistant on regular Mint State coins and how a coin will grade different each time you send it in; well just imagine the grader having to examine the entire surfaces obv & rev for distortion in the relectivity at 6 inches. Define distortion! Define distortion at 4" vs 6". LOL!!! Just a small dead spot in the field mirrors from a substandard basing job on the dies at the Mint that most collectors would never know to look for makes all the difference in the world to the graders.

Then add in that if the numerical grade is borderliner at the upper end and the PL/DMPL qualities are too the graders will bump the grade or the designation but not both.
Thusly a 65DMPL might regrade anywhere from 64DMPL to 66PL depending on how whichever grader(s) happens to look at it that day and what frame of mind he (they) and the finalizer are in.
Then add in the differences between ANACS & PCGS.
Then add in that most of the genuine PQ Killer DMPLs are stashed away in somebody's collection and never see the light of day and most of the DMPLs the average collectors have are low quality low end junk they bought on eBay or TeleTrade or from their "trusted" dealer who got it from a collector that got it on eBay or TeleTrade and you'll understand the confusion surrounding DMPLs and why a collector shouldn't crack them out unless he's a sure nuff Morgan expert because DMPLs are FLAKEY!

291fifth

Morgans seem to be a collecting world unto themselves. This is one area that PCGS seems to dominate so it is probably best to have your Morgans in PCGS holders if marketability is the issue. In order to avoid wasting money on crossover submissions I would suggest that you attend a major show and familiarize youirself with what PCGS actrually slabs as CAM, DCAM, etc. Too many members of this forum seem to waste money on crossover attempts without having a good idea of the real chance of the coin making it.