PCGS "standards" for DMPL dollars

rhedden

This is a follow-up on my previous thread about my beautiful ANACS DMPL dollars that did not cross at PCGS.

Let me further elaborate on my frustration with PCGS and it's so-called stringent DMPL standards.

Story #1: A few years back, I bought a PCGS MS-63 DMPL Morgan from a nationally known dealer that turned out to be PL at best. No way it was DMPL. I later sold it on ebay, clearly stating that the mirrors were shallow, and I ended up making a $50 profit because PCGS has this reputation for being stringent. Lucky thing I got my money out of that overgraded loser.

Story #2: I bought a raw 1883-CC Morgan at Baltimore show 2 years ago. I graded it MS-65 PL. Sold it to another forum member at no profit to me. He sent it to PCGS, it slabbed 64 DMPL. I can understand someone only seeing 64 in it, but DMPL was a bit of a stretch. I was glad my friend got a deal.

Story #3. After seeing that PCGS is not really so stringent on DMPL's, I sent two top-notch DMPL dollars in ANACS holders for cross-over. The dollars were Ex-Bill Lower, for those of you who are into DMPL Morgans and know that name. Now these were amazing DMPL's and were both deeper than what is typically seen in PCGS DMPL holders. They are real eye-popping coins. Neither one crossed. Now I am sending one of them back to the dealer who owned it before me, and losing $25 on the buyback, on top of the $86 I wasted on grading fees and shipping. If PCGS is going to cost me money like this, why should I submit anything to them?

Conclusion: PCGS is inconsistent in grading DMPL Morgans and possibly does not give fair consideration to coins housed in other services' holders. This is my opinion, anyway.

dollardude

I followed your previous thread closely, Rhedden, and I don't know what to say. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Personally, I have had what I consider to be fair grades from PCGS, including the one bodybag they gave me (I agreed). In fact, my 1928-P Peace that I sent in I was sure was only AU58, and they gave me an MS62 grade. I have not sent in any DMPLs, so I have no experience with these. All I can tell you is that my personal experience with PCGS has been very professional and helpful. I hope you don't give up on PCGS. My suggestion would be to call them and just discuss the situation. Perhaps they may take another look at your two coins at no charge (that's what I would do if I were them). Good luck.

Edited to add: If you do call them and are still not satisfied, you may want to try asking David Hall in the Q&A forum to take another look at these at no charge to you.

dragon

rhedden,

PCGS has been awfully inconsistent over the years on what they holder as DMPL. I've seen literally hundreds of Morgans in the older green tag holders that were designated as DMPL that were just barely PL at best. Supposedly their DMPL standards are quite stringent these days however.

IMO, PCGS also uses the PL and DMPL designations to denote 'PQ' on many coins that just miss the next grade up, kinda as a way of rewarding coins that are not really PL or DMPL, but very choice for the grade. It's not uncommon to see a barely semi PL coin in a PL holder that is very nice for the grade but clearly not a PL coin by any stretch.



edited to add:

That's a shame on the $86.00 you spent to have PCGS look at those 2 pieces for a couple of seconds and not cross them. If you 'know' DMPL's and think they are clearly DMPL coins and you like them, what;s the difference what PCGS thinks of them,,,,,,they change their grade opinions every day, and on literally hundreds of thousands of coins, it's nothing more than a roll of the dice IMO and who's in the grading room on any given day.



dragon

poorguy

I personally think it is Bull Crap that you should have to "cross your fingers" when sending in coins for grading. There is a written set of grading standards and if your coin is graded by those standards, BAM! that's the grade of the damn coin. No BS. No "Oh Man I hope this comes back as 66".

In a nutshell, the only reasons collectors and investors like the idea of Slabbed coins are:

a.) they want to glorify and protect their investments.

b.) to not get screwed by the Many, Many, Many, Many shady dealers out there trying to pass off AU coins as MS65DMPL.

c.) determine if a coin is genuine.

I am all for grading. PCGS has some nice looking slabs and they do bring a premium. Heck, I have some coins at PCGS right now. I am doing it for the right reasons though. I only send in coins cracked out from other slabs that are SERIOUSLY undergraded or raw coins. If it is correctly graded, I leave it in the slab.

Grading shouldn't be a roll of the dice. It should be constant. If you coin sucks, it sucks, by all standards, not just one company's. Same goes for Awesome coins. Since they are already slabbed and protected, the only other reasons you wanted to cross them to PCGS is to Glorify them with the "PCGS premium".

Just my opinion.

BigAl

I just received an Anacs 62dmpl in the mail yesterday. Looks to me like a 61 shot 62 with a lock on the deep mirrors. After your earlier post, I drove the coin to the shop to get separate opinions from 2 dealers. The concensus was MS60dmpl with 10% shot at 61! Holy shiitake! If they're correct, I just overpaid by $300-$400.

poorguy

Big Al,

Never believe the grades that dealers tell you.

I went to mine with a lot of 12 morgans. I wanted him to give a grade to them and asked if I should send them in to get graded. He told me "not to waste my time sending in to get slabbed, and that these coins are all Strong AU/BU. I gave him a (Are you freaking retarded.) look because I have been collecting for over 10 years and knew these coins were at least MS64. I decided to wipe the shady smirk of his face and spent 300 bucks to send them in under silver level membership.

I sent in 10 of them to PCGS and BAM! in your face dealer-boy.

MS65PL (should be MS66PL I have another in an MS66PL holder that has more marks) , MS65, MS64PL, MS64, MS64, MS64, MS63, MS63, MS62, and an (1886-S in AU58, wrong in my opinion, it was MS62 and I sold it to a collector as MS62 as he also agreed on the grade of MS62.)

I walked back into his shop and showed him this set and he was like "Wow, these are some really beautiful coins you got here." I told him, you sure didn't think so before they were slabbed. He didn't say anything because he knew I had brought these coins to him before. -Dirtbag.

All in all, Some dealers will tell you your coins suck so that you will sell it to them at dirt cheap prices.

BigAl

poorguy,

I hear what you're saying....but these dealers are good guys, and have no interest in the coin. Never steered me wrong in the past, in fact they want me to submit to pcgs and offered to buy me lunch if it goes 62dmpl---small consolation for gettig the vasoline treatment....

but I take it for what it's worth--an opinion. In fact, the first dealer tends to undergrade morgans by a point and overgrades circs by 1 point. About 20-30% of the ms morgans I buy off him grade a point higher at pcgs The other guy is an expert in gold and I don't think he deals many silver dollars....but he certainly knows his stuff, even though I doubt he's submitted many morgans to pcgs in the past few years.

Both these guys are awesome dealers and I'm happy I have them to go to for advice, questions, etc...Thankfully I didn't bump into your dealer when returning to the hobby!

If I do decide to crack it out and it comes back 60 or 61....I place the blame squarely on my shoulders for purchasing the coin, not pcgs for downgrading it. However, I'm not quite sure what I'll do at this point.

lava

rhedden, I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree with you. Let me tell you why.

First, you didn't buy a PCGS dmpl, you bought an ANACS dimpl, and I don't think you should have the right to return the coin. You said yourself PCGS was wrong, so why are you now taking the position you are unhappy with the ANACS coin you bought. You didn't buy a PCGS coin to begin with, so I don't think you should expect to hold your seller to insuring you get your PCGS slab.

Second, you ASSUME that the coin didn't cross because of the mirrors. I have seen some of the coins you mentioned. They came up for auction not long ago at Heritage, if memory serves me. They may have correctly been designated as dmpl, and PCGS is finding fault with the grade. Both mirrors and grade have to satisfy PCGS for a coin to cross. That is a tough standard, for tougher than for any non-dmpl morgan.

You suggest that based on your past experience you know enough to spot a true dmpl. But as I think you see, the consensus views PCGS as having heigthened its dmpl standards. I have many coins with deep mirrors in pl holders.

ANACS, too, has changed its standards. Not all ANACS coins are created equal -- the standards over there seemed to have also heigthened over time. The pedigreed coins you are holding were older slabs, if memory serves me, and may not even be grading the same way today by ANACS.

I remember looking at those coins and passing. I don't know if it was because of the mirrors or the grade, but I do remember passing. I don't think you should immediately assume PCGS is to blame, or your seller, for that matter.

Feel free to post the pix and let everyone see what you are looking at.

I have been in your predicament many times. I have learned to approach it from the philosophy "what am I missing," rather than "how come PCGS is screwing me again." Maybe further investigation will reveal why the coins didn't cross.

rhedden

lava,

When I purchased these dollars, the deal was that I could return them at any time for a buyback. I made it clear to the dealer that I would not have purchased one of the coins if there was no buyback offered. So I don't feel bad about returning them at all.

lava

OK, so your seller understood that PCGS would have to love the coin or the seller would refund your money. But you have suggested in this thread, and in your other thread, that PCGS was wrong not to cross them. Seems unfair to have it both ways. Either PCGS got it right and you should be happy for their wise call and return the coin in good conscience, in which case you shouldn't be criticizing PCGS here, OR PCGS got it wrong, and you should keep the coin knowing that you are right and PCGS is wrong, and that you truly hold two wonderful dmpls.

dollardude

Rhedden, could you post some pics as was previously suggested? Maybe we can help you if we see what they look like.

lava

Here is a Lower coin from ANACS. It is informative from the standpoint of suggesting the grading standards used at the time. From the looks of the reverse, I don't think PCGS would grade this coin pl, and from the marks on the cheek, I don't think PCGS would cross this coins as a 67. So, if this Lower coin is any indication, an attempt at crossover would fail for both grade and mirrors.

Link to an ANACS slabbed morgan with the Lower pedigree

flyingcougar13

The PCGS standards are: DMPL - clear reflectivity at a distance of six inches or more. Some frosting on the devices prefered. PL - 2 to 4 inch clear reflectivity and some cartwheel luster. These are just minimum standards taken from the official guide to "Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection" book.

dollardude

Thank you, Lava, for finding this example. I would have to say that this example is correctly graded as MS67PL. IMO, this one should cross to PCGS.

lava

Sorry dollardude, that 67pl is never going to cross, in my opinion. I have 16 66pls in my registry set, but no 67pls, and I just don't think that coin is going to cross.

rhedden

Hi all,

I've posted pics of these before, but have a look just for kicks. Now please don't tell me that these are only PL dollars, because you can't possibly judge mirrors from a digital photo, and I'm telling you they're way above the bar for the PCGS DMPL designation.


1885CC didn't cross 64DMPL at PCGS

In all fairness, this coin has 3 or 4 really tiny hairlines on the cheek. But taken together, they are less distracting than a single light "bag mark" would be. Someone show me a PCGS 64 coin with fewer distracting marks. I'd love to see one.

1883P didn't cross at 65DMPL at PCGS

My pics of the 1883-P are awful. It has clean fields, and the light fingermark is exaggerated by the photo. This is going back to its previous owner because common date 65 DMPL's won't bring half of greysheet unless they're in a PCGS holder.

Stuart

Ron: I am carefully following this thread because I've also got some "skin" in the game, as I've got 10 Raw Morgans currently at PCGS getting graded via "Economy" service level.

They are a variety ranging from some PL/DMPL CC's (1880-CC, 1890-CC & 1891-CC) to some high grade common dates (1879-S, 1880-S & 1881-S). I'll report to the forum how I do when the coins come back graded.

I am sorry for the disappointing results that you received on your coins. I wish you better luck next time

dollardude

Rhedden, those are both beauties! If I were you, I would be proud to own both of them.

IMO, the 1885-CC is MS65PL and the 1883 is MS66PL. However, it is VERY hard to judge a PL or a DMPL from pictures.