Is this matte proof Lincoln undergraded?

loro1rojo

So this is a 1912 PCGS PF 63 BN MPL which I've had in my collection for about 2.5 years now. I have always felt that it was undergraded, and have always been tempted in possibly having PCGS get another look at the coin. What do you guys think?

ChrisRx

Not under graded IMO.

savoyspecial

Chris knows this series much better than I do, but having said that I wouldnt question this in a 4 holder

PCcoins

Looks pretty clean, but the lack of luster kills the grade IMO.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>Looks pretty clean, but the lack of luster kills the grade IMO. >>



Matte proofs don't really have luster as you'd know it from a business strike Lincoln, or Morgan Dollar, etc etc. The whole point of the matte proof is that it have a matte appearance.

droopyd

Here's a 64BN (which Chris should recognize!) for comparison. I think the concept of "luster" on MPLs translates to more of a "sheen" than what we typically think of as "mint bloom."

Wolf359

Has a chance.

ambro51

Its tough to tell from the photograph, but are those carbon spots in the field to the right of Abe? If so, that is a grade limiter. Also, there is just something about the color of the coin which leads me to think it has had an OLD cleaning...a dipping. Every 1912 Ive seen has had a touch of green somewhere on the coin. This was one of the years that sat around unwanted and unloved in mint tissue for decades, and many of these were stripped and left to recolor long ago. The color patches above ONE and to the left side on the reverse...just seem to give me that message.

If you DO send it in for regrading, Id not be cracking that out and submitting it raw, you may be in for a rude surprise.

WaterSport

If you want to get rid of you’re wondering “IF” it could go higher than I would make arrangements with PCGS to return the coin and have them give it an acetone bath and then re grade it. It has worked for me twice. IMHO the textured surfaces of MPL's tend to collect a lot of dirt. You just never know what could be under that dirt....

WS

doh

Regardless of the grade that coins is PRETTY and should sell for a premium over other examples with the same grade.

ambro51

Ahhhhh I cant say I agree with that line of reasoning. Part of the allure of MPLs is the various toning colors they can have. The OP coin, while a nice example with good granularity, well, it is a bit boring. (sorry)

BillJones

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks pretty clean, but the lack of luster kills the grade IMO. >>



Matte proofs don't really have luster as you'd know it from a business strike Lincoln, or Morgan Dollar, etc etc. The whole point of the matte proof is that it have a matte appearance. >>



I have a 1913 Matte Proof cent in PR-65, brown. The obverse has “luster” while the reverse is fully Matte. From what I’ve read this is normal and the result of die friction while the coins were struck. It’s something akin to the fading of cameo devices on the later brilliant Proof coins.

To make a long story short, I think that the coin that started this string is very marginal for an upgrade. It’s a nice PR-63, but it would be a very marginal PR-64. It has some minor spotting and probably has been “enhanced” (brighten some) at one point. I would not waste my money on an upgrade attempt.

doh

<< <i>Ahhhhh I cant say I agree with that line of reasoning. Part of the allure of MPLs is the various toning colors they can have. The OP coin, while a nice example with good granularity, well, it is a bit boring. (sorry) >>


Really? Well I guess I've seen some REALLY boring ones then...I like the subtle color of the OP's example. To each his own I guess

coinguy1

If the original poster had shown this coin without revealing its current grade and had solicited grade guesses, I bet that there would be a number of 64 and 65 guesses.

I know of at least one, because it looks like a 64 at a minimum to me, and compares favorably with some 65's I have seen. There is more than enough apparent luster for a Matte Proof and the spotting is very minor. That said, I would guess that there are flaws on the coin which do not show up in the images. The color look s a bit light, so perhaps it was once dipped.

RedHerring

Looks 63+ to me. Good shot at 64 but doesn't appear to be a strong 64 in the images.

GFourDriver

My first impression of the coin was that someone tried to remove a fingerprint remnant with acetone and a cotton swab. There are still faint remnants of whorls under the URIB of PLURIBUS.

Wolf359

<< <i>My first impression of the coin was that someone tried to remove a fingerprint remnant with acetone and a cotton swab. There are still faint remnants of whorls under the URIB of PLURIBUS. >>



Maybe. My take on it was those were die polish lines.

divecchia

She's a beauty, regardless of the grade...

Donato

GFourDriver

<< My first impression of the coin was that someone tried to remove a fingerprint remnant with acetone and a cotton swab. There are still faint remnants of whorls under the URIB of PLURIBUS. >>



Maybe. My take on it was those were die polish lines.>>>



It could be die polishing on the 12 oclock reverse, but the area above the UN in UNITED is also suspect. I think that is why an otherwise 64 proof would grade as 63 IMHO.