Since when is a DMPL Morgan NOT "Prooflike" ??

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 8:15AM

In the upcoming Superior FUN Sale ("Elite Coin Auction," Fort Lauderdale, Florida; January 2005), Superior has the good fortune to present a complete MONSTER 1893-O Morgan dollar, Lot 793, graded MS66PL by PCGS. The coin has a monster strike & frosty devices, as well as beautiful original toning. (Sorry, I hate to disappoint all of you who only believe in white Morgans ... but that is a subject for another rant !!!)

Now, here is the strange thing: they have a headline banner on the lot: "FINEST PL BY THREE POINTS !!!" However, a quick look at the PCGS pop report tells us that although there are indeed no other coins graded "PL" ("prooflike") above MS63, there ARE however several coins with the "DMPL" attribution, including (1) MS64 DMPL and (2) MS65DMPL. In case anyone forgot, DMPL coins are a special subset of all prooflike coins, and so of course a DMPL is also "prooflike." If you are going to talk about the prooflike qualities of the coin, it is inaccurate to say it is the finest PL by three points when there are several DMPL's just one point lower !!!

Oddly, they chose the wrong thing to advertise. For there are NO other coins graded MS66 or higher for ANY attribution, MS, MS PL, or MS DMPL. In short, this coin is the solo finest example certified by PCGS for the date, regardless of other designations. No matter how you slice it, the coin is a monster !!!!

Looking at the other major grading service, for the 1893-O Morgan, NGC has done (2) MS65, (1) MS65 DMPL, and (1) MS66. The highest graded PL but not DMPL are (4) MS64PL. I can just imagine someone calling one of those four MS64PL "finest known" !!!!! But looking at the NGC pop report, we could certainly call the PCGS MS66PL the finest certified at both services, and thus, possibly, the "FINEST KNOWN" example of the date.

Funnily enough, just as the expression "finest known" should trump "finest certified" (because it includes all known uncertified coins in the census), there is an even higher accolade: "finest extant" which in theory includes those specimens which are NOT even "known" to the numismatic community !!!!!!!

Incidentally, the Superior cataloguers wrote, "We believe this coin is from the Eliasberg collection." Well OF COURSE it is from the Eliasberg collection !!!!! Anyone who looked at the 1893-O in the April 1997 sale would remember that monster, as well as the other monster O-mint coins. The Bowers & Merena catalog describes the coin in Lot 2293 as "Light golden toning over mirrored surfaces. Splashes of blue are seen at the rims." Described there as "MS-66 deeply prooflike," the coin was also called "one of the very finest in existence, possibly the finest."

The coin realized $176,000 at the Eliasberg sale. I would have no objection to calling it the "finest known," but it is still NOT "Finest PL by Three Points" !!!!! This discussion shows how "divided pops" with various attributions can become confusing. For example, if a copper coin is MS65RB, and is advertised as "Pop 1/0" you might conclude it was the finest certified. But there could be an MS66BN, or for that matter an MS66RD. It drives me nuts when a dealer advertises a PR65CAM as a "Pop 1/0" while neglecting to mention that there is a PR65DCAM, a PR66DCAM, and several PR67's !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

(P.S. Can you tell I really like this coin ??)

kieferscoins · December 19, 2004 8:17AM

Neat info! Yes, I can tell you like this coin

Do you have a link to the auction or a pic of it?

Cameron Kiefer

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 8:27AM

Cameron,

Check out: Eliasberg 1893-O Morgan offered by Superior

Best,
Sunnywood

By the way, the little toning spot below the "U" on the reverse is plainly visible in the Bowers catalog, and confirms the identity of the coin as the Eliasberg specimen, not that there could ever be any doubt !!!

Tassa · December 19, 2004 8:37AM

<< <i>Now, here is the strange thing: they have a headline banner on the lot: "FINEST PL BY THREE POINTS !!!" However, a quick look at the PCGS pop report tells us that although there are indeed no other coins graded "PL" ("prooflike") above MS63, there ARE however several coins with the "DMPL" attribution, including (1) MS64 DMPL and (2) MS65DMPL. In case anyone forgot, DMPL coins are a special subset of all prooflike coins, and so of course a DMPL is also "prooflike." If you are going to talk about the prooflike qualities of the coin, it is inaccurate to say it is the finest PL by three points.

Oddly, they chose the wrong thing to advertise. For there are NO other coins graded MS66 or higher for ANY attribution, MS, MS PL, or MS DMPL. In short, this coin is the solo finest example certified by PCGS for the date, regardless of other designations. >>

That doesn't make much sense, does it?

JrGMan2004 · December 19, 2004 8:46AM

Maybe I'm completely off topic from what you've said

But here goes... I think why they say this, is for the benefit of the Registry Folks... "Oh, this coin is the best coin I could get for my PCGS Registry Set by 3 points!! I MOST BUY IT" When, in actuality, the 2 MS65DMPLs are worth just as much in the Registry as a 66PL...

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 9:19AM

George,

There is definitely truth in what you say !! But honestly, when a coin is already a monster, it has the Eliasberg pedigree, and it is clearly the finest certified and likely the finest known specimen of the date, why would you need to bother twisting the facts to come up with "Finest PL by Three Points!!!"

They could more accurately have said, "Among those coins certified PL but not DMPL at PCGS only, without regard to NGC-certified coins or other known examples, this coin is the finest by three points." Or they could simply have said, "The Finest Known Example !!!" or just "The Eliasberg Coin" (which says it all to those familiar with his Morgans).

Funny thing is, there aren't that many Registry folks at this level !!! There are the "California" sets, and I imagine the owner(s) of those sets will be quite interested. And there is the Andy Hansen set, but I think he's probably satisfied with his MS65DMPL !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

coinkat · December 19, 2004 9:21AM

best of luck...

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 9:24AM

coinkat,

If I were really wanting to buy the coin at auction, I wouldn't bring any attention to it here !!! But seriously, any real contenders for this coin will certainly know about it and be well represented with or without my tirade ... after all, it's not exactly a casual purchase, except maybe for TDN or Laura's billionaires !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

nwcs · December 19, 2004 9:36AM

I know I haven't always agreed with your positions but I agree with this one. All the census statistics coming out now are misleading at best and deceptive at worst.

jbsteven · December 19, 2004 10:35AM

I know the current owner of this coin and have personally inspected this coin many times. VERY cool and rare coin.

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 10:44AM

Jason,

You should have asked him to let you list it on Ebay !!! All you'd have to do is give it some advance publicity on the PCGS Boards. I think it is time for major coins to get sold on Ebay. Everyone does check out the Ebay listings. I don't think a major listing would be missed, or realize less than it should. ANd you could have charged the owner less than the 8%, 10% or whatever he is paying Superior (I don't mean consignor's fee, I mean the buyer's fee, which the auction house pockets instead of the consignor).

Michael Casper is listing big coins on Ebay, but he doesn't make any of them into true auctions, because he always puts high starting prices. So it is really just an offer to sell, not an auction. Besides, his Morgans are all WHITE and I have no use for those !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

jbsteven · December 19, 2004 10:48AM

I have been thinking of persuading the owner of these high end coins to consign them to me for Ebay. It is kinda in the works.

Big time coins like this selling on Ebay all the time is something that would take time to mature. First there are not many people who buy these kind of coins AND that look on Ebay. I would love to see it come a common place occurance.

morgannut2 · December 19, 2004 11:45AM

Firstly I completely agree. Here's the problem. In the registry point systems, it is common for a 65DMPL to trump a 66PL, so registry people get into this strange habit of segrating PL from DMPL pops, even though we're taking about prooflike surfaces in both cases. Looks like they aren't long time categogers doing the write-up.

Sunnywood · December 19, 2004 1:35PM

Jason,

I think there are enough players who DO look on Ebay, that if you really put good stuff up there, word would get around quick. But, I would also suggest doing some advertising up front, such as posting on the BST boards, and e-mailing major dealers like Laura Sperber etc. before the auction goes live.

Best,
Sunnywood

morgannut2 · December 19, 2004 3:11PM

It certainly would give the big auction houses a scare if Ebay lowered the buyer's premium to 8-10%!! Their main problem is they seem proud of listing the odd and obsure--- attacting a great many scams. In order for Ebay to take part of the high-end market, they would require a staff with some minimal numismatic knowledge to facilitate large transactions, and get rid of all the pages of copy, altered, counterfeit, polished coin junk cluttering up the site. Perhaps a "Platinum Night" sort of sub-site would help, but it would have to be a real auction with reserves, rather than actually just a "full retail" page.

oreville · January 10, 2009 2:16AM

ttt

Coxe · January 10, 2009 2:43AM

The PL/DMPL waters have gotten quite muddy over the TPG epoch. There is a wide spectrum of variability among dates but also within specific dates. I've collected prooflike Morgans for a considerable amount of time and have seen a lot as have many others. There are PLs that eclipse DMPLs of the same date in their depths. There are one-sided prooflikes (PL and DMPL) that have gotten the plastic nod as well. Some dates, due to how dies were used that year at the particular mint, are much harder to locate in two-sided prooflike (strict prooflike) than their reported populations would indicate. All of this before anyone even dissects the grading drifts and coins that have been "helped". Dealers and auction companies do what they have to do and promote the coins that are for sale as best tey can, like lawyers defending criminals sometimes. After all I have seen, the prooflike Morgan is one of the best cases to point to wit the argument to buy the coin and not the holder. Some registry fraks might be chiefly concerned about the tag. A real collector will look to the qualities of the coin and value it appropriately.

The eBay link doesn't work or the lot was pulled. I had hoped to see this coin's images. I have had one of that date in PCGS MS62DMPL for some time and wanted to compare mine to it. I always thought mine was way undergraded but was also on the PL/DMPL cusp.

edited to add> Didn't notice this was from last month. How did the coin sell by the way?

IrishMike · January 10, 2009 4:09AM

Last month plus 4 years ago.

Can't seem to recall how it went.

Coxe · January 10, 2009 4:12AM

D'oh! Missed that 2004. I have got to have records of this now somewhere then. I should know that coin. Defintiely a good topic to have resurrected though.

How about those DMPLs that sold at FUN yesterday?

Since when is a DMPL Morgan NOT "Prooflike" ??

Comments

Leave a Comment

Since when is a DMPL Morgan NOT &quot;Prooflike&quot; ??

Comments

Leave a Comment

Since when is a DMPL Morgan NOT "Prooflike" ??