Does anyone seriously collect DMPL dollars by date?

MrEureka

Don't get me wrong. I like DMPL dollars, especially in high grades. I'm just wondering if anyone is trying to collect a complete date set of the things. And, if you're that person, would you consider a non-DMPL dollar for your set if you liked the coin?

BTW, I'm asking because I'm trying to determine the appropriate premiums for each date. If enough collectors INSIST on DMPL's, the premiums for the rarest DMPL's could get extreme. If collectors will readily accept a non-DMPL for their mostly DMPL set, the premiums shouldn't be too outrageous.

theboz11

Started too,, but Gave up the effort long ago when my interests turned to the Darkside

My Morgans

mr1931S

DMPL dollars are a serious drug. Don't get hooked on 'em.

I keep hoping I'll find a '21 D DMPL in some dealers stock that I'll be able to buy for 80 S dollars.

See what I mean... It's hopeless...

tradedollarnut

It always struck me as slightly silly to collect Philly DMPL's. But I can certainly see the attraction to the branch mint coins.

Stuart

Andy: I collect PL & DMPL Morgans by date, and my personal preference for ideal grade is MS-64 PL, because for commercial reasons I can avoid both the MS-65 and DMPL market premiums, and if I am selective in purchasing premium quality MS-64 PL's I can get coins which I feel are "just miss" MS-65 DMPL's for MS-64 PL prices

I have noticed that PCGS seems to have a higher quality standard than other grading services for PL/DMPL Morgans, so I have a preference for PCGS graded coins of this type, and they also serve a dual purpose as additions to both my PCGS & NGC Registry Sets

So, I prefer not to pay current high marketplace prices for either MS-65 or DMPL Morgans. Just my own personal collecting preference...

Here's an example of a coin that I just picked up 2 weeks ago from a dealer friend at the Austin Coin Show:


1883-CC ANACS MS-64 DMPL Morgan




And here's one that I purchased about 30 years ago, which I only recently had graded, that's one of my favorites

1880-CC (8/High 7) PCGS MS-64 DMPL

MrEureka

Mr1874 and Stuart -

Are you trying to build complete sets?

MrEureka

It always struck me as slightly silly to collect Philly DMPL's. But I can certainly see the attraction to the branch mint coins.

For the casual buyer, I agree. But the Phillies make more sense if you're trying to build a complete set of DMPL's.

Stuart

Andy: I am trying to slowly build a representative set of PL/DMPL Morgans without spending a fortune doing so.

This means that I will soon begin to "hit the wall" when I have to make purchasing decisions about some of the tougher dates to continually add to my set -- I'm not quite there yet.

I would like to have a complete set, but I will settle for some non-PL coins in high eye-appeal AU grades (except for the super expensive coins) if the PL's are unreasonably high in price...

MrEureka

I would like to have a complete set, but I will settle for some non-PL coins

Stuart - That was the info I was looking for. Thank you!

jbsteven

Andy

I think Don Rinkor is trying to build a complete set.

his set has a pretty good start already. http://www.pcgs.com/new_set_registry/display_coins.chtml?regsetid=10199&alltime=no



dmpldollar.com

lava

I am trying to complete a set of mirrored coins, and I say it that way because for me, pls represent a better value, even though in most instances pls are comparatively almost as rare as dmpls in terms of populations.

PCGS has virtually conceded that a pure mirrored set is impossible. For that reason PCGS only requires 50% of the coins to be pl or dmpl. PCGS also does not graded mirrored coins in au, so for some years where condition is a problem, notably the 1884-s and the 1901, finding an example that is both uncirculated and mirrored is really difficult, and when opportunity comes a knockin, it comes with a steep price tag.

NGC by comparison has not made that concession, and not only does the NGC registry require 100% of the coins to be mirrored, but the NGC set also requires that some of the varieties be obtained in pl or dmpl, including the 1887/6-o and the 1900 o/cc. The only forgiving aspect of the NGC registry is that is allows for inclusion of circulated examples of mirrored coins, being au50, 53, 55 and 58.

The population numbers for the dmpls are so low that obtaining a complete set would be virtually impossible, particularly since many of us "in the know" have also come to realize that through repeated crack-outs, even the listed populations, while very low, are over-stated.

In my desire to obtain a complete set of mirrored coins, I have stretched the limits to not only include pl coins, but to also include ANACS coins.

My NGC registry set is currently 88% complete (soon to be 89%), and that figure would go up if I ever bothered to cross some of my ANACS coins, but I'm content for now.

If I am going to fill a gap with a non-mirrored coin, it has to have awesome eye appeal to fit in with the rest of my coins. That generally means a great strike and extraordinary luster, and preferably with some semi-pl reflectiveness. Of course some years offer so little contrast anyway that such examples are very difficult to find.

So, can you hold your dmpls for a premium? Maybe. One factor difficult to gauge is how many collectors of dmpls there are with sets not registered. I know they are out there because of disappearance of coins from major auctions that do not turn up in the registry sets. At the same time, those sets that are registered are dwindling, as D.Greener sold of earlier this year, and L.Shapiro has indicated his intention to also move on to something else.

Personally, I think a premium is deserving of both pls and dmpls, since the populations are so low, and in my opinion the mirrored effect boosts the coin to the next grade. In other words, since virtually everyone concedes an 1890-cc ms65 dmpl is more desirous than an 1890-cc ms65, the 65dmpl must be treated as being better than the entire population of ms65s, putting the 65dmpl more in the league of the populations of ms66s.

lava

I should also add that if given the choice between a 66pl and a 65dmpl, all other things being equal, I typically go for the 66pl. As such, I am not a true dmpl purist, but the combination of a 66 grade with the prooflike effect is a winning combination over a 65 with deeper mirrors.

I think the late DWG (Denny Gigeous)(may he rest in peace) was as close to a dmpl purist as I have come across.

ohbaby

I completed my CC DMPL set about 2 years ago. Branch mints only is the way to go otherwise it begins to look very monotonous. Everyone though should have one DMPL.

coinkat

Some Dates are very rare such as the 1893 and 1904. I think TDN said it all...

mr1931S

No attempts are being made to collect a DMPL Morgan date set by me.

Collecting DMPL by mint would be more affordable except that for the Denver mint one would have to settle for PL since 21 D doesn't exist in DMPL...as far as I know anyway.

dragon

I think it may a futile effort to try and assemble a COMPLETE set of DMPL pieces regardless of ones budget or time frame, as some dates are all but unknown in DMPL. Off the top of my head, these are some dates which are either excessively rare or unknown in DMPL



03-S
01-P
92-S
84-S
01-S
93-S
93-P
21-S
96-S

I think anyone assembling a complete DMPL set would pretty much have to settle for regular MS coins to fill at least a few slots.

dragon

lava

Dragon, the dates you mention are very difficult, if not impossible, in dmpl, but I do not necessarily agree that one must settle for regular ms in all of those dates. I think I have seen all of these dates in pl, although some examples are aupl.

BigAl

Does anyone seriously collect DMPL dollars by date?

got that on my "to do" list.....one of these days I'll get around to it, substituting pl's where there are no dmpl's.

Cam40

I agree. Everyone should have atleast one Dimple Morgan.
I have a PCGS `83 CC $ ms64 dmpl. Love the coin.
Heck. Just the CC mm gets me going.