Stuart - I like your post at the Q + A

lava

Stuart, compare you post at the Q + A with mine -- they are virtually identical. I'd like to think great minds think alike. Considering we never talked about this, the coincidence is amazing. Hope David Hall joins are thinking.

For the rest of you guys -- the issue to whether PCGS should give the prooflike designation to an au Morgan. Stuart and I think yes.

coinkat

tough call... worthy of some consideration

DorkGirl

I totally agree that a prooflike au coin is still prooflike and should be designated as such. A Proof 58 is still a proof isn't it? Seems like a double standard to me.

kranky

The difference is that proof is a method of manufacture. If a coin was minted in proof, it's always a proof. Prooflike is a characteristic of the fields, which disappears with wear. Not really a double standard.

But if a coin has prooflike fields, it shouldn't matter if it's AU or not.

lava

I do not think PCGS ever took the position that an au coin could not be pl -- I think PCGS simply felt there may not be enough demand to warrant this new designation. BUT, with the registry making more people focus on completing collections, maybe PCGS will reconsider. I hope so. I probably own 25 coins or more in aupl (NGC or ANACS).

Myqqy

I have to agree with Lava.........

dizzlecc

I think there is room in the market as long as the coin actually qualifies as proof like.

It makes sense especially if you are trying to complete a pl set.

The only negative is trying to price the thing. It is already difficult to price au coins then add to the mix a pl.

the next question is will this cause a run on ngc au pl coins?

DorkGirl

I understand the difference between proof and prooflike as far as manufacturing is concerned. What I don't understand is why it would be a "new designation" on a prooflike coin.

What I was trying to point out in my first post was that I didn't realize that that there was a bias on coins that were PL but could not receive that designation because of a hint of rub. It seems very strange to me that this would even be an issue. That's why the double standard comment was made. The coin is still PL whether or not it saw any hint of circulation. The fact that this coin can't receive a PL is a very strange bias and needs to be corrected.

Stuart

Jim: Thanks for alerting me that David Hall has replied to our Q&A forum questions on PCGS perhaps certifying AU-PL Morgan Dollars, and also for pointing out that coincidentally you and I both submitted the same question to him.

I agree with you that PCGS' perceived lack of commercial demand may have been one consideration for not yet adding the PL/DMPL designation to Morgan Dollars.

==================================================================================================

DorkGirl: Since PCGS is very strict on how they measure and designate PL/DMPL Morgan Dollar surfaces (i.e. unobstructed mirrored fields with so many inch reflection), there is also a practical issue to how worn, or how many contact marks it would take, to degrade the mirrored fields enough for the coin to no longer qualify for the PL/DMPL designation.

So, it's not just a matter of how pristine and reflective the surfaces were when the coin was minted, but is also a question of how those very delicate surfaces have survived either in mint bag transport, or in light (AU) circulation. There is little doubt that a true AU-58 Morgan with mostly undisturbed deep mirrored fields will qualify for either PL/DMPL designation. As the mirrored fields of the coin gradually degrade through circulation with more wear & contact marks (AU-55, AU-53 & AU-50), at some point the mirrored fields may no longer meet the strict PCGS reflective field distance measurements to qualify for PL/DMPL status.

Smittys

Ok what about XF < I have an 1894-S Morgan XF DMPL
Can such a thing exsist?
Smitty

Stuart

<< Ok what about XF < I have an 1894-S Morgan XF DMPL
Can such a thing exsist?
Smitty >>

Smittys: I will quote an excerpt from my previous post which is the best way for me to answer your above question:

<< Since PCGS is very strict on how they measure and designate PL/DMPL Morgan Dollar surfaces (i.e. unobstructed mirrored fields with so many inch reflection), there is also a practical issue to how worn, or how many contact marks it would take, to degrade the mirrored fields enough for the coin to no longer qualify for the PL/DMPL designation.

So, it's not just a matter of how pristine and reflective the surfaces were when the coin was minted, but is also a question of how those very delicate surfaces have survived either in mint bag transport, or in light (AU) circulation. There is little doubt that a true AU-58 Morgan with mostly undisturbed deep mirrored fields will qualify for either PL/DMPL designation. As the mirrored fields of the coin gradually degrade through circulation with more wear & contact marks (AU-55, AU-53 & AU-50), at some point the mirrored fields may no longer meet the strict PCGS reflective field distance measurements to qualify for PL/DMPL status. >>

lava

Smitty, personally I have never seen a Morgan in xf45 that would qualify in my mind as prooflike. The fact that you say you have an xf45 with deep mirrors intrigues me -- I would love to see that. Any chance you can post images? For now I fall into the camp of "never say never" -- I would stop short of saying that an xf45 in pl or dmpl could not exist; I can safely say that I have never seen such a coin.

I have seen an xf45 that was once a prooflike coin, but the remaining relfectivity would not qualify for a prooflike designation.

Based on my au examples, I would say that as you move from au50 to 53 to 55 to 58, there is less and less chatter in the fields, so the reflectivity is less obscured or less obstructed. To me this makes sense: the more wear a coin has, the more wear there is going to be on the devices and in the fields.

For a coin to wear on the devices to a grade of xf45, but yet retain virtually uncirculated fields, seems unnatural to me. I suppose it could happen; I just haven't seen an example.