1880-S Morgan

ksteelheader

A dealer has this coin as MS63 PL and wants prooflike money. Your thoughts please....Ken
.
.
.
.

JrGMan2004

Pics don't look too Proof-Like to me... I'd think the fields would look darker in the pictures... and it looks like there's frost in the fields... just my unprofessional opinion...

ss350camaro

Looks like it has a "proof like" appearance to me. Not a deep proof appearance but proof "like" anyway.
There are all kinds of differing grades, or conditions, of "proof" in my opinion. It's up to the buyer to agree or disagree with a stated condition and make an offer, or bid accordingly.

gemtone65

The seller can describe this coin as PL, but the grading services won't and it's not. It seems like a coin almost has to be almost DMPL on both sides before PCGS and NGC will call it PL these days.

paigowjohnny

63 yes...PL no

Trooper

Ken
I'd pass...Pl sometimes is in the eye of the seller and unless it really stands out and catches your fancy I'd pass.

Tom

BigAl

plenty of 80-s morgans to choose from.

i think for a nominal increase in money, you could own a much nicer coin....a solid PL with decent cameo in 64.

morganbarber

PQ 64, maybe not PL. A real cutie. If you can't get her off your mind, then have her.

dizzlecc

I would hold off and cherry pick to a degree. The 1880-s has some killer pls out there in low grades, kind of like the 1881-s.

Stuart

MS-63 but doesn't appear to be PL from the photo. Many 1880-S (and 1881-S) early S-Mint Morgans display brilliant semi-PL to satiny surface luster, but relatively fewer of them display actual dual-sided mirror PL/DMPL surfaces.

I have noticed a progression in surface luster which appears to be caused by the progressive striking for more coins as follows:

DMPL ==> PL ==> Semi-PL ==> Satiny ==> Frosty

Ken: I hope that this is of some help...

ksteelheader

Thanks guys! I'm not going to buy the coin, even for my raw set....Ken

rainbowroosie

Nothing special for an 80-S...pass if it ain't cheap.