Options
DMPL Morgans - Post a Photo here !!!!
Sandhawk
Posts: 1,154 ✭✭✭
My new DMPL..............
0
Comments
-------------
etexmike
Too bad the SF Mint commemoratives didn't come out that way!
Any experts care to expound on how the DMPL Morgans came into existance?
The name is LEE!
CG
highly polished dies. As the dies wear the DMPL goes to PL then the cartwheels really start
showing up. Most DMPL's do not have a cartwheel effect as the reflection that you see in
the cartwheel is off of imperfections in the die. Thus, a new die should not have enough
imperfections to produce the cartwheel effect.
My guess,
bob
<< <i>... more??? >>
Got one in 67?
Mikey
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
Here is my favorite, it is harder to find in dmpl than you'd think for such an easy pl date, this one's in a rattler and looks closer to 65, but doesn't everyone think their coin is a little better than the stated grade.
Will’sProoflikes
These aren't the most valuable, but I love the doily holder they're in, if anyone here has pl/dmpl's in the doily, I will buy them!!
Will’sProoflikes
edited to add: I used an apparent "forbidden" word between the words "bad" and "Morgan".
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
clarkbar04, What year is that? 1880? I want one...bad!!!
<< <i>clarkbar04, What year is that? 1880? I want one...bad!!! >>
1879 - close! They're common but pretty! Not bad for $35, I think!
<< <i>If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks
I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished?
<< <i>
<< <i>If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks
I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished? >>
DMPL Morgans come from freshly polished dies. The coins could be from virgin ture first strikes or could be the first productions from repolished dies. A lot of them are repolished after clashing. Nearly all 1882-CC and 1883-CC DMPLs are in that boat. The TPGs do not differentiate among them, nor should they. All are interesting to me as (I guess) a serious DMPL collector. However, a type collector or someone who just wants those first strikes only, would best serve their interests by selecting the coin in hand and certainly never sight-unseen based on a TPG tag. An interesting issue is the 1886 VAM-1C. It is often called 3+2 clashes but was really 3+3. I sent a prooflike to Leroy Van Allen that shows that thie dies for this one were apparently massively clashed at set up of the original virgin dies. What is fascinating is that the obverse was immediately discarded but the reverse was not repolished form the clashes but paired with a new obverse. It is likely that either there was no readily available freshly polished alternate die or, more likely, a new pair was pulled and they mistakenly discarded the new reverse and not the clashed one. That is why it wasn't repolished. The operator thought it was a fresh one.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Here's another, not a 66 by any means, but looks nice for a 62. I had to revive this thread, I love dmpls.
Will’sProoflikes
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks
I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished? >>
DMPL Morgans come from freshly polished dies. The coins could be from virgin ture first strikes or could be the first productions from repolished dies. A lot of them are repolished after clashing. Nearly all 1882-CC and 1883-CC DMPLs are in that boat. The TPGs do not differentiate among them, nor should they. All are interesting to me as (I guess) a serious DMPL collector. However, a type collector or someone who just wants those first strikes only, would best serve their interests by selecting the coin in hand and certainly never sight-unseen based on a TPG tag. An interesting issue is the 1886 VAM-1C. It is often called 3+2 clashes but was really 3+3. I sent a prooflike to Leroy Van Allen that shows that thie dies for this one were apparently massively clashed at set up of the original virgin dies. What is fascinating is that the obverse was immediately discarded but the reverse was not repolished form the clashes but paired with a new obverse. It is likely that either there was no readily available freshly polished alternate die or, more likely, a new pair was pulled and they mistakenly discarded the new reverse and not the clashed one. That is why it wasn't repolished. The operator thought it was a fresh one. >>
Thanks for the explanation. I kinda thought it might be from a polished older die. The cracks are very narrow in width, but extend quite a ways (on the obverse) and are very hard to see with the naked eye unless you know they are there. I'm guessing this specimen was one of the first from a newly polished die pair. I doubt the dies that made this one could strike many more before coming completely apart.
I got this one from a board member. It is really a 8/7 low
I saw Coxe's photo and had to add my own, not quite as many, but here's my collection of pl/dmpls.
Will’sProoflikes
<< <i>Mark just did some new images of this one for me.
-------------
etexmike >>
Mike, what's the grade of this beauty?
<< <i>I can't decide which one....
Did I ever mention that YOU SUCKK!!!!!!!
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.