Does PCGS have different criteria for PL/DMPL Morgan designation for different dates/MMs?

TexasDoc

I have greatly enjoyed reading these forums as they are very educational. This post is my very first, so please provide me with a little understanding and compassionativity, and I will look forward to hear what the experts say.

I love to collect PL/DMPL Morgans (and type coins) and participate in the PCGS Set Registry, and I currently have 16 complete sets and 12 incomplete sets. I am currently spending most of my time and resources working on my PL Morgan sets. Here are my four Morgan Dollar PL PCGS Registry sets:

Set Name Composite Rank Grade Rating Completion Required Needed My Cost Price
Texas Doc's Collection Morgan Prooflike Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1878-1921) 14 59.17 37.27 72.16% 97 27 $0.00 $27,079.00
Texas Doc's Collection Morgan Dollars Prooflike with Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1878-1921) 10 59.50 32.76 64.66% 116 41 $0.00 $28,899.00
Texas Doc's Collection Morgan Dollars Prooflike Only Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1878-1921) 10 64.49 24.87 56.70% 97 42 $0.00 $20,119.00
Texas Doc's Collection Morgan Dollars Prooflike Only with Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1878-1921) 8 64.49 23.15 52.68% 112 53 $0.00 $21,539.00

So here is my question: Does PCGS have different criteria for the PL and DMPL designation for different dates and mint marks? I have gotten the impression they do after examining 100s of PL/DMPL Morgans. For example, the 1880 s is often seen sharply struck, cameo devices and with deep blinding mirrors, yet fails to get a PL designation. Look on ebay for the 1880 s, you will see numerous examples that appear at least PL that do not get the designation. On the other hand, I have a few PL certified Morgans from more difficult dates like 1888 s, 1899 s, and 1921, that have such marginal mirrors that can't compare to a PL mirror of the 1880 s. Are these judged differently? One more story: In my sole crack out attempt, I cracked out a MS64PL 1890 o, MS63DMPL 1882, and a MS64PL 1884. I thought these had a shot, and I did get upgrades on some of the others I sent. When regraded, the 3 Morgans kept their numeric grades but lost the PL designation on two and the DMPL coin was downgraded to PL. Does PCGS have strict scientific standards for designating PL or is it a judgement call by the graders? Also, have the rules or attitudes changed over time?

Thank you in advance for any commentary. I also keep my eye open for PL/DMPL Morgans, especially the tougher ones, so please feel free to contact me.

Texas Doc

mkman123

Welcome TexasDoc! I'm sure someone will come along and give you the answer you need.

If you can share pics of your collection, that would be great!

ajia

<<Thank you in advance for any commentary.>>

TexasDoc, I do not collect PL or DMPL Morgans, so I'll leave the question on non-PL vs. PL vs. DMPL alone.
As for a commentary I would say if you're only looking for an upgrade in grade, or upgrading a PL into a DMPL, do not crack the coin out.
But I'm figuring you learned that.

I will say that I think folks here may be reluctant to answer publicly because of the new 'rules'.
Maybe HRH, Mr. Willis or someone else from PCGS would care to answer?

blu62vette

Welcome TExasDoc, looking forward to hearning more from you about DMPL's.

What holders were your crackouts from?

My registry is Vette set for DMPL's and I added 6 more coins at FUN. Also while at FUN I was talking about this at dinner one night with to other registry set owners, DT MIller and Midwest mirrors. Supposedly a DMPL is DMPL same rules for all years. Some of the better years you really have to wonder if you could get a new coin graded. I submitted my crossovers with very low expectations. The talk is that things are tight now. You will find many older holders that likely would not DMPL or PL today.

I have seen a 21-D in a PL holder with virtually no mirrors. My 21-P is one of my best coins, great mirrors and strike would be a PL in any year.

TexasDoc

But I'm figuring you learned that.



Yep!!! It was a while ago...
I guess this comes down to art instead of science, IMHO.

soty27

The answer to your question is yes. There is absolutely different criteria for different years when it comes to the PL-DMPL designation. A basic example are the early (S) mints, they are often if not always seen with mirror surfaces vrs early (P) mints that are often not seen or found to be as common. A early (S) mint morgan really needs to be booming with mirrors in order for it to snag the DMPL designation while just about any 1921 morgan that had half the mirrors of a early (S) mint morgan would get the designation pretty quickly. You can go into much further detail when it comes to mint marks vrs years but the overal answer to your question is yes. Any major TPG may tell you otherwise of course but in my experience there is pretty clear criteria for different years.

scottgardener

It's my understanding that there is a set objective standard for grading PL and DMPL; if printed text is readable or if light reflects a certain way at 3cm or greater from the coin's surface on both obverse and reverse, it qualifies as PL. The same goes for DMPL at 6cm. I'd have to do a search to verify where I read this, but I do believe it's a quantifiable standard that applies regardless of date or mintmark.

Before gold stole the show, DMPL Morgans seemed to be doing quite well. Now might be a great time to collect them, while investor-collectors are temporarily distracted. They're beautiful coins, with all the things that make Morgans great--VAM varieties, color toning, Carson City dates, and the wow factor of sheer size, but with added flash. Indeed, they're kind of like rock stars, except that they don't burn out, do drugs, and go to rehab before doing a reunion tour.

blu62vette

<< <i>It's my understanding that there is a set objective standard for grading PL and DMPL; if printed text is readable or if light reflects a certain way at 3cm or greater from the coin's surface on both obverse and reverse, it qualifies as PL. The same goes for DMPL at 6cm. I'd have to do a search to verify where I read this, but I do believe it's a quantifiable standard that applies regardless of date or mintmark.

Before gold stole the show, DMPL Morgans seemed to be doing quite well. Now might be a great time to collect them, while investor-collectors are temporarily distracted. They're beautiful coins, with all the things that make Morgans great--VAM varieties, color toning, Carson City dates, and the wow factor of sheer size, but with added flash. Indeed, they're kind of like rock stars, except that they don't burn out, do drugs, and go to rehab before doing a reunion tour. >>



Scott-

I think you mean 3 to 6 inches on the mirror surface....