How do you properly measure the depth of a DMPL Morgan's mirrors? Pics added!

coinkid855

I ask because I picked up an OUTSTANDING raw reverse-only (unfortunately!) DMPL in Pittsburgh. I haven't imaged it yet, but using the rudimentary "can i still see my fingernail?" method, I came up with 21 inches! Almost everyone I showed said it had some of the deepest mirrors they'd ever seen! It's definitley my favorite pickup of the show, which makes sense, considering I didn't buy much at all....

Here's the coin:






And here's a couple more shots just to show the depth of the mirrors. In the first shot, you can see the reflection of the tape measure in the fields. The second shot shows just how far that tape measure was from the coin....16 inches!









-Paul


Edited to add pics!

STONE

...can you use it for shaving?

keets

i recall seeing some sort of measuring device a number of years ago, whether it was on eBay or at this site i can't recall. i look forward to the pictures but knowing how difficult it can be to photograph DMPL's i bet it will be less impressive than seeing it in-hand. on a side note, i'm sorry that i missed the show and an oppurtunity to meet you.

blu62vette

Since that one is raw try a ruler. You have to be able to read the numbers.

messydesk

Leroy Van Allen produced a DMPL guide in the early 80s. Basically a card with a ruler printed on it. There was other stuff on it, too, but I can't remember what -- maybe a printed clash guide. He gave me a handful of them several years ago. I'll have to see if I have any left.

PonyExpress8

The reverse is certainly a DMPL and change on your coin. If I recall correctly a DMPL showed reflectivity sufficient to read a printed newspaper line (or something similar) in excess of 8.5" out and a PL about half that. I have a couple of references for this tucked away so this is from memory. As noted it has to be both sides.

The services are very strict in the past few years on this but I have seen older holders designated as such that aren't even that close so when pursuing DMPL's and PL's in old holders pay attention as they may not make the standard today.

That was an awesome reverse buddy. Nice find.

Bear

Place the coin at right angles to a ruler or a piece of print. You should be able to

see a clear reflection for at least 8 inches on each side to be awarded a DCAM by PCGS.

They increased the requirements about 2 years ago from 7-8 inches, so an older slab coin

might not make the new stricter requirements.

stealer

Not to hijack the thread and I think it sort of apples to this thread,
how should one go about measuring mirrors when the coin is already
in plastic since the plastic also has faintly reflective qualities.

Bear

The plastic does not seem to cause a significant problem

with added reflectivity in the measurement.

lordmarcovan

There used to be some dictum about how you should be able to read newsprint in the coin's fields at x-number of inches, but I forget how many inches x stood for.

PS- But 21 inches... wow. If you can read in your coin's mirrors at that distance, I'd say you've got a no-question DMPL, unless there's some frost breaks or somethin'.

Timbuk3

Thanks for the education, guys !!!

coindeuce

I use a section of an old style folding carpenters ruler, which has nice big scale graduations and bold black and red print on it.

messydesk

I found the card the Leroy Van Allen produced. It's an order of magnitude generous by today's standards, with PL at 2" and DMPL at 4", rather than 4" and 8".

dragon

I think the thing with using rulers and newsprint and all the other methods people talk about is nonsense. Does anyone here believe the graders at PCGS or NGC have little rulers and newspapers at their workstations? I believe the human eye and a bit of experience is all that's needed.

The majority of those who collect PL / DMPL Morgans can typically tell in a second or two if a coin is semi PL, PL, a strong PL or DMPL just by looking at the coin and tilting it a bit up and back under a light souce. A real DMPL will have deeply mirrored fields on both sides just as the designation denotes, similar to a proof coin. If you cannot tell by just tilting the coin and seeing the depth, another way is just to hold your thumb in front of the fields and you should get a near perfect reflection just like a real mirror would give. Also when tilting a DMPL coin under a light, the light will practically hurt your eyes when it hits the coin just right. On just a PL coin you will also get a reflection but not the same kind, it will be softer and not as crisp like an actual mirror would be. Also the amount or lack of cameo contrast on a coin makes no difference as to whether it's a PL, a DMPL or otherwise. A coin (like an 1881-CC for example) can have what appears to be a lot of contrast and only be termed a semi PL at best, whereas a late O mint date can have virtually zero contrast and be a full DMPL.

The best way IMO to learn the difference is to look through online auction archives and view many hundreds of different graded coins in both PL and DMPL, or better yet to view as many as you can in person at coin shows (PCGS coins only though)


I also do not believe that PCGS has significantly tightened over the years as to what they call a DMPL. I do believe that many coins in older PCGS holders appear to not be a full DMPL anymore because they were repeatedly dipped prior to being in their final holder and the mirrors on a marginally DMPL coin will be destroyed over time from over dipping. They will eventually turn from being fully reflective to a mix of reflective and frost with a hazy/foggy type of look, and it usually starts from the rims working inward. Of course there are also those coins in older holders that were never really full DMPL's to begin with but rather nice just PL's where the dipping has virtually destroyed almost all reflectivity in the fields and they now appear hazy and flat looking years later. These days it's actually difficult to find a nice DMPL Carson City dollar that hasn't been totally dipped out at one point unless it's a GSA holder coin. For some reason many dealer/collector crack out artists felt they had a better shot at upgrades by dipping the coin before submitting to really bring out the 'brilliance' which initially makes the coin look very flashy but after time makes the coin look much worse, and the more it's been dipped the worse it degrades as time goes by.

blu62vette

I do agree with Dragon, I have never measured a mirror.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
.
it seems by my experience the amount of "frost" on the obv/rev devices is the biggest problem with getting dmpl/CAM designation

i have posted a link to a pdf file for pl/dmpl morgans a couple times here in the forum, you may need to dig through some posts to find it, but it is worth digging for
.
.

Bear

In the 60s and 70 you could find the more available DMCAM in FULL BLACK AND WHITE.

Today, what we see , at best, is a contrast between the devices and the fields is medium

to dark gray. I do wonder where all of the B & W coins have gone to. My best guess is that

you will find them in huge collections to be found in Asia. If you have ever seen a true B & W

Morgan Dollar, with minimal bag marks and abrasions, it is a sight you will never forget.

coinkid855

Moved pics to first post!

coinkid855

TTT for evening crowd!



-Paul

blu62vette

I have several of these one sided DMPL's now, I tend to buy them when I can't find full DMPL's. It is a shame these dies were changed at the same time for some great coins.