I am very skeptical of the PCGS price guide for morgan pls and dmpls, and you should be too

lava

The World Series competition has helped highlight for me that the PCGS price guide for morgan pls and dmpls is way off.

By way of introduction, my World Series portfolio is loaded with tougher pls and dmpls, and has moved a total of $2,500, and that was just one coin. I could care less about how the competition ends, but I do care about just how poor the PCGS price guide is.

In 2006 a number of tough pls and dmpls have sold well beyond the PCGS price guide, and yet no bump. In fact, many sales going back to 2005 and 2004 were in excess of the PCGS price guide.

The fact is I am ready willing and able to pay well beyond the PCGS price guide for many of the pls and dmpls I desire, and I can't get anywhere close. Not long ago an 1886-o in 62pl came along; PCGS' price is (I think I recall) about $3500. The coin sold for above $9000. Another one came on the market shortly thereafter, and I think that example sold for in excess of $8000.

This is just one example, and there are many, but generally I'm talking about better dates and/or low pop coins in pl and dmpl.

So, why is PCGS low-balling the prices?

My theory is with the tighter standards, they get hit on the guaranty, so keeping the price down limits the exposure and the pay out. If I am PCGS wanting to limit my exposure, maybe that works, but if PCGS wants its price guide to be taken seriosuly as a fair indicator of the market, I think what PCGS is doing sucks, and the end result is the price guide bears no rational relationship to the market, and in the end the PCGS price guide can't be taken seriously.

Sorry PCGS, at this point your price guide is doing a disservice in instances where the price guide is way out of line with actual sales, and the morgan pl and dmpls values is one such area. Some of those prices are just a huge joke. It is a disgrace.

lava

Here is a flavor of the ridiculously low prices:

1883-s 64pl $8000

1884-s 60pl $6000

1886-o 63pl $5500

1886-o 62dm $4500

1892-o 64pl $4000

1893-o 62pl $3500

1893-o 63pl $8000

1894-o 62dm $2500

1894-o 60dm $800

1896-o 62dm $6500

1896-s 63pl $3750

1901-s 65pl $5750

1904 65pl $7500

1921-d 64dm $4000

1921-s 64pl $2500

1921-s 63pl $750



I know some of you may think this is a lot of money for some of these, but I'm here to tell you, and I think the auction records back me up, these coins can not be purchased for anything close to the figures listed by PCGS, and for that reason the PCGS figures are ridiculously and shamefully low.

Coppernicus

For slabbed coins, I rely more on auction prices (e.g. Heritage), and if available, prices on ebay. In my specialty, Lincoln wheats, the PCGS guide is not too good (under for some and over for others.) Plus, it's not updated frequently enough.

Mike

AceK

Interesting data. What doesn't make sense to me is how PCGS can miss in both directions. For the non PL, common date morgans, my experience is the guide values tend to be from 25-40% too high compared to Heritage/e-bay prices. Makes you wonder where the heck they're getting their numbers.

Yale68

I agree with you 100%

Spudmasher

There is no question as to your assessment of the PCGS guide. I purchased a 1880-CC/79 REV 78 VAM 4 from Don Rinkor at the Baltimore show last Dec. for $2500.00 in MS64PL. This coin in the pop report is very slim. Very tough in PL, and DMPL. Showed the coin to Larry Briggs about a month ago, and he stated that it was black, and white. He wondered why it wasn't a DMPL. They have really tightened the screws.

slipgate

we should be using Anaconda as our guide.

HighRelief

<< <i> Showed the coin to Larry Briggs about a month ago, and he stated that it was black, and white. He wondered why it wasn't a DMPL. They have really tightened the screws. >>



PCGS changed the way they are grading PL'S the past couple of years. What was DMPL before, has now become Prooflike instead for some reason. I know PCGS likes to stay out on top, but they are changing the standards midstream. All of a sudden some of your DMPL'S are now PL'S and worth much less. I quit buying DMPL'S in the older green holders just for this reason.

This reminds me of how ACG started out grading coins in 1984 with their standards of grading. Then PCGS and NGC came in and set new standards for what a MS coin should really look like. All of a sudden MS65's were now MS63'S with PCGS grading standards and so on. Now, everyone holding ACG graded coins got screwed for big money with ACG going down the toilet. I am sure this is what PCGS and NGC set out to do in the first place.

This looks like the same scenario in my opinion and PCGS does not want to ante up full price for changing their grading standards again with the PL and DMPL Morgans.

Here is a good example of what they are now calling just prooflike. This coin is Black and White with nice deep mirrors and should be designated DMPL in my eyes.

lava

Bump for DH.

Coxe

I have noticed NGC tightening up too lately on PL/DPL.

PCGS's price guide is like many price guides in offering only general relative valuation guidance. Trends is similar and the greysheet is often whacked, even if it is systematically updated. With prooflike Morgans, there is a tremendous variation in eye appeal among simlarly graded PLs and DMPLs. A collector relying on a price guide to buy these, especially rarer dates, is foolish. I haven't challenged the PCGS grading guarantee, but if the valuation difference used is their own homegrown price guide, it does seem like a rigged racket in theory at least.

lava

Bump for the night gang, and DH.

ttxp

Its a rare occasion to find any DPL at or below PCGS price guide, a scan down the value index they place on them is a trip down fantasy lane.

Fletcher

Interesting. However, I have found the opposite to be true. Granted, I only buy CC Morgans, but I have purchased 5 High End PCGS MS66DMPLs over the last six months and they have all gone for right about what the PCGS price guide quoted ... in fact, a few went for a bit of a discount.

As for the tightening of standards for DMPLs and PLs, I agree completely. They needed to tighten up their standards for low end DMPLs as I have come across too many crappy coins in PCGS DMPL holders. However, they seem to have raised their requirements to an almost unattainable level as many obviously high end DMPLs with great mirrors seem to be coming back in PL holders as of late. Instead of just preventing the crud from making DMPL status, which I believe was their intent, they are completely changing the definition of DMPL ... which is devaluing all PCGS DMPLs that aren't in new holders ... even the super high end examples.

sweetwilliet

If you look at the pop reports, you'll see why. CC DMPLs are pretty common (not necessarily is 66 dmpl, but total population), whereas the price guide may quote you 275 for a 64 dmpl non-cc that has only 200 or so graded that way, and that will run you far higher than 275 unless the coin is a dog.