Will PCGS consider grading Liberty Seated dollar's Proof-Like???

shish

I would like to see PCGS designate Proof-Like surfaces on Liberty Seated Dollars. Both NGC and ANACS have been doing this for years. As a specialist in this series I know that Proof-Like dollars are worth a premium. I own several coin graded by PCGS that should grade Proof-Like. Following is a list of the dates I've seen with Proof-Like surfaces, many are very rare but they do exist. I know many other collectors who agree that this would be a useful and beneficial service.

1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1850, 1850-O, 1855, 1857, 1859-O, 1860-O, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1871.

Please consider adding the Proof-Like designation for this series. As a Collector Club member and registry participant I would greatly appreciate this additional service.

crypto79

I know people have sent in graded MS coins with "PL" features and had them upgrade to a lower value PF coin

crypto79

Added designations are driven by the registry folks. It is used to differentiate closely ranked collections which is why you see FS,FB, FBL,FH or RD or RB added to grades mostly in popular( I.E. obtainable series) 20th cen series such as cents, Morgan's, franklins ect. Seated dollars are not a real obtainable series and just having a complete set would put it in the top 5 of the rankings, thus there is no need to brake it out further. I see them as not likely to do so just like gold coins which lots come with PL or DMPL but with few complete sets.

speety

<< <i>I know people have sent in graded MS coins with "PL" features and had them upgrade to a lower value PF coin >>



Guilty

IMHO adding prooflike designations does nothing really. Are you looking for a point bonus on the registry or something like that? Nice PL coins will bring a premium to the collector sight-seen (even though many times i'd prefer a blazer as to a PL!).

As a side note, i've owned or seen the following dates in PL in addition to your list: 1849, 1851, 1854, 1861, 1870-cc, 1872-cc, 1873-cc.

shish

Speety thanks for your input. I have absolutly no interest in "a point bonus on the registry or something like that? " Rather the Proof-Like designation would more accuately describe the surfaces of a coin, just like Morgan dollars. Why do NGC and ANACS provide this designation? I realize that there are not many Proof-like seated dollars so the financial incentive is small. The good news is that I'm convinced providing this designation would require little work and almost no expense to PCGS. I would pay extra for this service.

Any other seated collector's out there?

MikeInFL

Why?

Prooflike surfaces are obvious and sell for little/no premium. Do you really need the TPG to tell you what you can see in-hand?

ziggy29

<< <i>Do you really need the TPG to tell you what you can see in-hand? >>

A few potential buyers do, which is why I suspect some people who own coins like these would like to see the designation.

shish

Someone reminded me of one of the amazing coins that I viewed at the James A Stack action. If my memory is correct this coin was Proof-like with extensive die polishing. In addition the 1840 and 1841 Fairfield specimens, 1844 Starr specimen, and the 1851 Sterling specimen, are all described as Proof-like. All of these gems reside in the Legend Collection and can be viewed in the PCGS or NGC registries. In addition several other coins in this collection are described as semi Proof-like, perhaps some of these would qualify for the Proof-like designation. Regardless I'm convinced that these and all Proof-like L.S.D's in PCGS holders deserve the Proof-like designation. If you believe that these rare gems are not worthy of this designation then which coins are? And why should they be excluded?

keoj

Shish:

I couldn't agree with you more. I don't care about registry value, what I do care about is some standard (by a TPG) regarding the surfaces of the coin. FS, FBL, etc. are all strike designations, why not PL? Why do it for Morgans but no other coins? Why (this is not that relevant) do other TPGs recognize this as being just another strike designation?

keoj

shish

bmp

tradedollarnut

IMO, the only seated dollars worth a premium with prooflike surfaces are the branch mint coins. I've never understood the fascination with prooflike Philly business strikes - if you don't want full cartwheel luster dripping off your coins, then go buy a proof!

tradedollarnut

Someone reminded me of one of the amazing coins that I viewed at the James A Stack action. If my memory is correct this coin was Proof-like with extensive die polishing.

Sounds like the 71-CC

DUIGUY

She's almost it, or is she it?

Coinosaurus

<< <i>IMO, the only seated dollars worth a premium with prooflike surfaces are the branch mint coins. I've never understood the fascination with prooflike Philly business strikes - if you don't want full cartwheel luster dripping off your coins, then go buy a proof! >>



Amen. Nothing kills luster like P-L surfaces.

shish

TDN thanks for weighing in. I too prefer full cartwheel luster on business strikes. Regardless of our personal preferences many people do like and pay substantial premiums for Proof-Like examples. I disagree with crypto79's explanation for why this designation is not available for seated dollars. Many of these designations were around long before the registry; we agree that it's a very difficult set to complete. Neither of these reasons should prevent PCGS from providing this designation. " Rather the Proof-Like designation would more accurately describe the surfaces of a coin, just like Morgan dollars." If NGC and ANACS can provide the Proof-Like designation for seated dollars why shouldn't PCGS ?