Is It Time To Recognize Prooflike and Deep Proof Like Business Strike Coins Across The Board On All

wondercoin

For a few decades, PCGS has recognized "PL" and DMPL" designations for business strike Morgan Dollars. They even agreed (a couple years after their release) to recognize "PL" on Gold UHR's from 2009 and just recently agreed to recognize "PL" and "DMPL" on the 2014-S "Enhanced" business strike Kennedy Half Dollars from the 50th Anniv. silver sets. These designations have essentially been used now in isolated situations. So, isn't about time to recognize the designation across the board on all business strike coins deserving of the designation?

I got in the other day a 1970-D "business strike" Kennedy half dollar that was about as "DEEP PROOFLIKE" as a 1970-S proof Kennedy from a 1970 Proof set! Yet, the coin will not receive a PL or DMPL designation (even if it deserved it) as it is not a Morgan Dollar or one of the handful of other coins accepted thus far for that designation.

I say the grading services should open up the "PL" and "DMPL" designations to all business strike coins deserving of the designation, including, but not limited to Mint state Mercury Dimes, Silver Washington quarters, Silver Roosevelt Dimes, Franklin half dollars, 40% Silver Ike Dollars, etc., etc., etc. I have seen wonderful examples of all of these business strike coins with great "PL" surfaces and I believe it would be great for the collector for PCGS to adopt the designation across the board for all Mint State coins.

What do you think?

Wondercoin

pruebas

I agree. Doesn't NGC already do this? They do for world coins at least.

lasvegasteddy

i agree fully

LindeDad

Too late that horse is already gone.

cupronik

I agree.

I believe NGC already does this.

I think PCGS should do this now as they have expanded their certification into other areas since the beginning (full step Jeffs, FBL Franklins, Cherry-picker guide & Bust Half varieties, First Strikes, etc)

P-L & DMPL coins from any series are interesting and much, much scarcer than ordinary frosty circulation strike coins and a market would develop as people would definitely collect them.

keyman64

I have always thought this with the PL Mercs that NGC recognizes.
PCGS chooses to let other TPGs lead in different areas. This is one of them.
They let ANACS and NGC lead in Discovery Coins and accepting new CPG/FS coins first.
I think NGC has the strong lead in PL.

smokincoin

<< <i>i agree fully >>



I do as well.

smokincoin

double post

smokincoin

triple post

keyman64

Unknown

This content has been removed.

keyman64

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cladking

PL's exist so they should be graded as such.

My only fear is that the bar will be set so high that some dates (like 1974) won't
exist in PL which might discourage the few collectors who are currently working on
sets.

Perhaps the solution is to set the bar lower for some dates and mints.

cladking

<< <i>Why?
It is either a proof or a business strike, pl is just the first run of business strikes first off the press ie an eds (early die state), you are just splitting hairs. >>



This isn't true. Most dies are not basined and never produce a PL at all.

wondercoin

CK - I don't mind a strict grading of the designation and, yes, most dates have few or virtually no PL coins. Take the silver Washington quarters that I have studied for over 30 years... the vast majority of all business strike PL's are "S" mint coins. Ditto for silver Roosevelt Dimes. Yes, one might never find a PL example of many of the "P" and 'D" mint silver quarters or dimes. And, even the "S" mint coins are exceedingly scarce. That 70-D Kennedy I mentioned is very scarce with strong PL surfaces.

Wondercoin

blu62vette

I am a biased PL/DMPL dollar collector....

With that said and PL Merc or Jefferson Nickel is not the same PL as a Morgan. Some of the SS Central America gold really seems to have the same look as PL/DMPL Morgans but on Mercs and other issues how do you draw the line on what is/is not PL/DMPL? Are you really able to measure the mirrors the same?

Don't get me wrong I really like when I see a PL Merc, seated quarter, seated half or trade dollar. They are uber cool in my book but I don't know how one can call them all the same and consider them just PL/DMPL. Maybe a new term needs to be coins for some other issues.

MrEureka

And while we're at it, how about CAM and DCAM designations for business strikes and SMS coins?

I might even start a registry set of SMS DMPL DCAM Kennedys!

mercurydimeguy

I have been wishing for more than a decade...

I've owned many Merc and Gold coins that were PL to non-numismatists from across the room, but PCGS chooses not to recognize them.

I can only imagine what kind of market would be made in PL PCGS coinage...crazy premiums...maybe that's one reason they don't do it? Because there are enough PL Morgans out there to quench demand, on the other hand is there enough PL gold out there to quench demand?

wondercoin

"Don't get me wrong I really like when I see a PL Merc"

Me too!!


Wondercoin

cladking

<< <i>CK - I don't mind a strict grading of the designation and, yes, most dates have few or virtually no PL coins. Take the silver Washington quarters that I have studied for over 30 years... the vast majority of all business strike PL's are "S" mint coins. Ditto for silver Roosevelt Dimes. Yes, one might never find a PL example of many of the "P" and 'D" mint silver quarters or dimes. And, even the "S" mint coins are exceedingly scarce. That 70-D Kennedy I mentioned is very scarce with strong PL surfaces.
>>



The '70-D is common with slightly PL or better fields.

I think it would be great if the coins were common enough to form collections. The silvers
are probably even tougher than the clads. PL's can be simply stunning coins and some are
almost indistinguishable from proofs. Early strike PL's on burnished planchets tend to be the
most spectacular and are very scarce to rare for the vast majority of post-'34 coinage. Only
the '88-D cent is "common". Indeed, the majority of clads don't exist at all in strongly PL
condition and many probably weren't even produced. I fear the bulk of PL graded clads would
be post-1985.

A possible solution might be to have two or three levels of PL rather than lowering the stan-
dards for tough dates.

I've long suggested people set these coins aside due to their scarcity, beauty, and desirability.
There's nothing prettier than a Philly mint clad that's still clean from brand new basined dies.
Any coin from new dies is attractive to me though.

shish

I have been wishing for more than a decade... I'm afraid we will have to convince several people in the inner circle. I've tried but have been unsuccessful.

shish

I have been wishing for more than a decade... I'm afraid we will have to convince several people in the inner circle. I've tried but have been unsuccessful.

shish

I have been wishing for more than a decade... I'm afraid we will have to convince several people in the inner circle. I've tried but have been unsuccessful.

wondercoin

"There's nothing prettier than a Philly mint clad that's still clean from brand new basined dies."

Yes, it is interesting that the "PL's in clad are available so readily from Philly while nearly all of the silvers are from SF (and virtually none from Philly).

I have seen amazing deep PL's in quarters and half dollars especially from the 1989-1998 era. Ditto for some Jeffs and Roosies as well.

Wondercoin

wondercoin

Here is an example of a Deep Prooflike 1970-D Kennedy half Dollar, which is seldom encountered with two sided DEEP PROOFLIKE (as this coin has). Next to it, is a roughly PR69 (near cam) quality 1970-S Proof Kennedy for comparison. I am still trying to learn how to better capture the depth of these prooflike coins. It is impossible to see in the pic that you can literally "shave" in the fields of this 'D' mint Kennedy!





Wondercoin

Stooge

I for one have really liked to see PL DMPL for coins other than Moargans. If a coin qualifies for the designation, then it should receive that as such.

Last year I purchased an incredible PL 1968-D MS67+FB from Datentype and I looked at that coin longer than I have ever looked at a dime. It absolutely struck me like no other dime has and most deservedly qualifies for the PL/DMPL designation. I also just purchased a 2015-D MS68FB roosie and it easily would qualify for a PL designation.

I don't think it matters as to whether of not certain dates of a series has any specimens that will get the PL/DMPL. I believe it should be available to all series, and given to coins that qualify.

leothelyon

Such a designation (among others) would only confuse and take advantage of those who are less knowledgeable in that area. I've been collecting for a number of years in Jefferson nickels and there's really not that many for PCGS to make a market with. This area of prooflike business strikes is really for the specialists, similar to 6 step Jefferson nickels. Heck, go search ANACS population report and see how many there are........not too many. Not nearly enough to get PCGS that excited to add another line in the pops .......for each and every date.
It would be a huge waste of time and money typing in all those 0's.


Leo

To add; Perhaps PCGS could include coins with PL surfaces under their (+) designation.

OGDan

<< <i>Why?
It is either a proof or a business strike, pl is just the first run of business strikes first off the press ie an eds (early die state), you are just splitting hairs. >>



Not necessarily. Dies can be polished far into a production run.

MrEureka

Adding the designation for all series would be a big mistake because there are some issues that are (or should be) worth more without PL surfaces. For example, consider the late date Three Cent Nickels and Three Cent Silvers, 1872 Two Cent Pieces and lots of Philadelphia Seated issues from 1863-1889.

cladking

<< <i>Such a designation (among others) would only confuse and take advantage of those who are less knowledgeable in that area. I've been collecting for a number of years in Jefferson nickels and there's really not that many for PCGS to make a market with. This area of prooflike business strikes is really for the specialists, similar to 6 step Jefferson nickels. Heck, go search ANACS population report and see how many there are........not too many. Not nearly enough to get PCGS that excited to add another line in the pops .......for each and every date.
It would be a huge waste of time and money typing in all those 0's.


Leo

To add; Perhaps PCGS could include coins with PL surfaces under their (+) designation. >>



This could be a problem since there are ugly PL's out there too.

I suppose though that some people might simply treasure the PL quality above things like surfaces
or good strikes just as some people elevate Full Steps of Jeffersons above grade and condition.

If there were a mad rush for the coins some collectors might get badly burned.

Kove

I think PCGS missed the boat long ago by not designating prooflike commems. Designating non-Morgan coins as prooflike is one of the few areas where NGC really leads PCGS.

Stooge

Here are some pictures (not really good ones, sorry) of my 1968 MS67+FB Roosevelt Dime.

Stooge

Here is a much better picture that shows the PL surfaces.

wondercoin

Great Dime Paul!

Wondercoin

TopographicOceans

In a way it would just add a new layer of grading that might not be useful in the long run.
Proof like coins can come in all grades and probably be designated with a + grade.

Though to be honest, I'd like PCGS do add PL designations to classic gold coins like ATS, because PL gold is cool.

Twobitcollector

I plucked this from change the other day, it really stood out, at first I thought it was a proof.
Wish I had a better photo

coinkat

Good question and seems to confirm the notion that grading is in fact and evolutionary process. We really should not lose sight of why coins are graded and support the need to make classification designation options for all coins that truly exist within a series. Now does this apply across the board to all series? I am not so sure at the moment. But I do know and have personally seen coins within series where the PL/DMPL/CAM options should be available.

morgansforever

I would most likely submit these two if PCGS recognized PL coinage.
Posted these two before, they really are crazy looking in-hand.
Seems mid-90's clad was struck xtra nice, how do you guys feel?




EDIT: Just reshot the top Washie, just to see if I could improve the image, added a swell Kennedy too.

keets

Is It Time To Recognize Prooflike and Deep Proof Like Business Strike Coins Across The Board On All MS coins?

no.

Manorcourtman

Why not. It will increase PCGS revenues as many will resubmit for PL/DMPL designations. I also agree there are some fantastic DMPL business strikes coming out of the Mint these days. Why not recognize them.

JCLIGHTBRIGADE

I would say NO. Think +.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>I am a biased PL/DMPL dollar collector....

With that said and PL Merc or Jefferson Nickel is not the same PL as a Morgan. Some of the SS Central America gold really seems to have the same look as PL/DMPL Morgans but on Mercs and other issues how do you draw the line on what is/is not PL/DMPL? Are you really able to measure the mirrors the same?

Don't get me wrong I really like when I see a PL Merc, seated quarter, seated half or trade dollar. They are uber cool in my book but I don't know how one can call them all the same and consider them just PL/DMPL. Maybe a new term needs to be coins for some other issues. >>




A line would have to be drawn

Yes give them to those that deserve it

TwoSides2aCoin

Agree with Keets.

A discerning eye knows what to look for and what is desired for "his/her" collection. Those who don't aren't looking at the coins that much, anyway. Sure the submitters know the coins which are PL or DPL, but they're not necessary designations, in my opinion.

Then again, the discerning eyes are often demanding of more information on the outside of the coins. This is often the "case", and why we always have changes.

HighRelief

I think you are on to something Wonderboy, I agree with you fully.

Stuart

As a collector, I like the opportunity presented to purchase some coin series (such as $20 Gold Liberty Double Eagles) with PL/DMPL reflectivity in PCGS holders, that are not designated as either PL or DMPL on the holder.

emzee

Is It Time To Recognize Prooflike and Deep Proof Like Business Strike Coins Across The Board On All MS coins?

Yes, long past due.

I have always thought that for 1965-1967 non-proof coins, PCGS should designate "ms", "ms PL" and "ms DMPL". Currently, graders designate a 1965-1967 non-proof coin as either "ms" or "SMS" by taking an educated guess based on its appearance.

There are probably a dozen or more date/denomination combinations of SF mint coins from the 1940's that are seen PL.

Michael

123cents

If they deserve it, I'm all for it.

CoinZip

<< <i>how do you guys feel?


>>



I feel those photos are awesome... which prolly means the coins are too....

19Lyds

<< <i>For a few decades, PCGS has recognized "PL" and DMPL" designations for business strike Morgan Dollars. They even agreed (a couple years after their release) to recognize "PL" on Gold UHR's from 2009 and just recently agreed to recognize "PL" and "DMPL" on the 2014-S "Enhanced" business strike Kennedy Half Dollars from the 50th Anniv. silver sets. These designations have essentially been used now in isolated situations. So, isn't about time to recognize the designation across the board on all business strike coins deserving of the designation?

I got in the other day a 1970-D "business strike" Kennedy half dollar that was about as "DEEP PROOFLIKE" as a 1970-S proof Kennedy from a 1970 Proof set! Yet, the coin will not receive a PL or DMPL designation (even if it deserved it) as it is not a Morgan Dollar or one of the handful of other coins accepted thus far for that designation.

I say the grading services should open up the "PL" and "DMPL" designations to all business strike coins deserving of the designation, including, but not limited to Mint state Mercury Dimes, Silver Washington quarters, Silver Roosevelt Dimes, Franklin half dollars, 40% Silver Ike Dollars, etc., etc., etc. I have seen wonderful examples of all of these business strike coins with great "PL" surfaces and I believe it would be great for the collector for PCGS to adopt the designation across the board for all Mint State coins.

What do you think?

Wondercoin >>

I simply do not agree.

DaveWcoins

<< <i>I think you are on to something Wonderboy, I agree with you fully. >>



+1