Prooflike Morgan confusion

veryfine

I've owned this Morgan dollar since the 1980's. It was in a PCGS "rattler" with a PL designation. I cracked it out and submitted it to PCGS and it came back MS65 but no PL.
Have the standards for prooflike Morgans changed over the years? Although I'm far from an expert in this series, this coin appears to be prooflike to me.

Wolf359

Yes, tighter now, much tighter.

morgandollar1878

PL coins can be difficult to identify from pics and it looks nice, however I hate to say that cracking the coin out was your first mistake.

SeattleSlammer

Let this be a lesson to you, descecration of the sacred rattler will only bring pain and suffering!

Wolf359

They have a re-grade option now which is the safe course. If you send the PCGS coin in, it's gets cracked and graded raw by PCGS and you get the higher grade back on the slab. The downside is you get a new holder as well.

veryfine

The good news is that it originally graded MS64 PL and it came back as an MS65.
A point given and a point taken away, I suppose.

dragon

<<< Have the standards for prooflike Morgans changed over the years? Although I'm far from an expert in this series, this coin appears to be prooflike to me. >>>



No, the standards have not changed, a prooflike dollar in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, etc. is still a prooflike dollar today and always will be a prooflike.

Now as for the major 3rd party slabbers, their standards have changed so many times as to what they consider a prooflike it's dizzying. I'm sure if you search the Heritage auction archives you could note many, many dollars in PL designated holders with less reflectivity/depth than your coin.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

golfer72

A 65 is worth more than a 64PL anyway. The coin is nice. Constantly changing standards makes the whole TPG concept invalid anyway.

BloodMan

I would follow Realone’s advice. In one submission, I cracked out coins in 4 OGH’s: 1 upgraded, 2 downgraded and 1 was bodybagged. Eventually, I was able to get the bobybagged coin back into a holder, but it was not worth the frustration.

Was the ’90-S Morgan graded MS64 in the Rattler? If so, I would be happy with the upgrade, as the holder is worth more with the MS65 non-PL label.

veryfine

<< <i>I would follow Realone’s advice. In one submission, I cracked out coins in 4 OGH’s: 1 upgraded, 2 downgraded and 1 was bodybagged. Eventually, I was able to get the bobybagged coin back into a holder, but it was not worth the frustration.

Was the ’90-S Morgan graded MS64 in the Rattler? If so, I would be happy with the upgrade, as the holder is worth more with the MS65 non-PL label. >>


Yes, the original rattler grade was 64 PL, so in the end, I am satisfied.

Just somewhat perplexed that the new holder wasn't labeled PL.

magikbilly

Hi,

Did ANACS differentiate between PL and DMPL and so on in the very first slabs they produced? I can't recall the designations and criterion from that old light grey ANA grading Guide from way back then. I ask because I have an 1897-P Morgan 1$ in an original first gen slab graded MS63PL but it has 4" + watery mirrors and a rather strong strike and some measure of contrast along with squared off numerals and so on from what I guess is die polishing. It does have a cartwheel but it is strongly mirrored and watery as noted. The coin also has the ANA slab crescent toning (rich blue crescent obv and rev in the usual places) from what I imagine is the adhesive (if any was used) and not the insert as it appears on both sides. Many thanks. I do not have pics, but my question is about the ANA PL designations at the time.

Eric

I bought it from my local B&M recently in memory of my old coin dealer who was killed in a car crash. The other is very ill and no longer at the shop. I started buying from them when I was very young - maybe 10. I first bought a 1781 Noth American Token in VG. He always preffered P mint PL Morgans, especially the early 80's, and this coin was slabbed around the time I started collecting and buying from him.

edited for logic. i was tired.

Marauderrt10

both services are blind to PL and DMPL surfaces right now. I sent in an obvious DMPL and they PL it.

WTCG

<< <i>Let this be a lesson to you, descecration of the sacred rattler will only bring pain and suffering! >>



That's definitely not true. Besides, there are still a lot of rattlers around today, especially for Morgans, silver commems, and later date Mercury Dimes and walkers.

The standards for DMPL and PL tend to be more subjective than the typical grading standards. A coin that may grade PL on one occasion may grade something with a totally different designation the next time and it could go either way, either from a grade without any designation or even a DMPL designation.

Crackout dealers deem these type of coins as "double jeopardy" coins. When resubmitted for a new grade, Murphy's Law dictates that either you'll get a higher grade but not the designation you want or you'll get the designation but not the higher grade.

golfer72

"Was the ’90-S Morgan graded MS64 in the Rattler Yes, the original rattler grade was 64 PL, so in the end, I am satisfied." Wasnt the coin in question an 80-S?

dirtybird

In my experience, the 1880-S dollar has above-average luster to begin with and to be a designated a PL by pcgs, it has to be way above average. The lower reverse may be a little too cloudy to suit them. Very nice coin though.

cinman14

Should the tight standards help the current PL and DMPL maintain their value a little?

COALPORTER

"The standards for DMPL and PL tend to be more subjective than the typical grading standards"

Really, deap mirrors are about the only grading thing that has a real test you can do.

(maybe you can send the morgan to NGC next and get a MS66PL-star)