DMPL Morgans - Post a Photo here !!!!

Sandhawk · January 19, 2007 4:01AM

My new DMPL..............

kwmorgan · January 19, 2007 4:16AM

Very nice coin. Extra magic in those two little C's as well.

dragon · January 19, 2007 4:23AM

jbsteven · January 19, 2007 4:28AM

nice on Sandhawk

etexmike · January 19, 2007 4:46AM

Mark just did some new images of this one for me.

-------------

etexmike

19Lyds · January 19, 2007 6:42AM

WOW! That 80-S is just awesome!

Too bad the SF Mint commemoratives didn't come out that way!

Any experts care to expound on how the DMPL Morgans came into existance?

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 6:56AM

Nice

CalGold · January 19, 2007 7:43AM

CG

AUandAG · January 19, 2007 7:47AM

I'm not an expert by any means but I'll guess that the DMPL coins are the first off of new
highly polished dies. As the dies wear the DMPL goes to PL then the cartwheels really start
showing up. Most DMPL's do not have a cartwheel effect as the reflection that you see in
the cartwheel is off of imperfections in the die. Thus, a new die should not have enough
imperfections to produce the cartwheel effect.
My guess,
bob

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 8:08AM

Nice

2bucks · January 19, 2007 8:09AM

<< ... more??? >>

Got one in 67?

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 8:11AM

Nice

DorkGirl · January 19, 2007 8:16AM

coingame2000 · January 19, 2007 8:49AM

Here's a ultra-deep black and white cameo PCGS MS65 DMPL 1885-CC dollar...

Mikey

sweetwilliet · January 19, 2007 9:03AM

Here is my favorite, it is harder to find in dmpl than you'd think for such an easy pl date, this one's in a rattler and looks closer to 65, but doesn't everyone think their coin is a little better than the stated grade.

sweetwilliet · January 19, 2007 9:06AM

These aren't the most valuable, but I love the doily holder they're in, if anyone here has pl/dmpl's in the doily, I will buy them!!

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 12:13PM

Nice

jmj3esq · January 19, 2007 12:17PM

Damn, Fletcher!!! Those are some bad Morgans!!!

edited to add: I used an apparent "forbidden" word between the words "bad" and "Morgan".

Coxe · January 19, 2007 12:22PM

I can't decide which one....

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 12:39PM

Nice

Fletcher · January 19, 2007 12:43PM

Nice

clarkbar04 · January 19, 2007 1:37PM

jmj3esq · January 19, 2007 1:49PM

I dont even know what to say. These are some nice morgans.

clarkbar04, What year is that? 1880? I want one...bad!!!

clarkbar04 · January 19, 2007 3:51PM

<< clarkbar04, What year is that? 1880? I want one...bad!!! >>

1879 - close! They're common but pretty! Not bad for $35, I think!

bestclser1 · January 19, 2007 4:50PM

PCGS MS66 DMPL 1904-O.

stev32k · January 19, 2007 7:39PM

Here's an ANACS MS65 DMPL. I really like this coin the mirrors are ultra deep and it has very strong cameo contrast. There are also interesting die breaks on both sides.

MrSpud · January 20, 2007 12:29AM

If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks

jbsteven · January 20, 2007 12:43AM

edited. misread post above.

ricko · January 20, 2007 1:09AM

Those are incredible coins... not a good thread for me to review as I head out the door for the Boeing coin show.

Cheers, RickO

stev32k · January 20, 2007 2:33AM

<< If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks

>>

I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished?

Coxe · January 20, 2007 3:47AM

<< 

<< If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks

>>

I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished? >>

DMPL Morgans come from freshly polished dies. The coins could be from virgin ture first strikes or could be the first productions from repolished dies. A lot of them are repolished after clashing. Nearly all 1882-CC and 1883-CC DMPLs are in that boat. The TPGs do not differentiate among them, nor should they. All are interesting to me as (I guess) a serious DMPL collector. However, a type collector or someone who just wants those first strikes only, would best serve their interests by selecting the coin in hand and certainly never sight-unseen based on a TPG tag. An interesting issue is the 1886 VAM-1C. It is often called 3+2 clashes but was really 3+3. I sent a prooflike to Leroy Van Allen that shows that thie dies for this one were apparently massively clashed at set up of the original virgin dies. What is fascinating is that the obverse was immediately discarded but the reverse was not repolished form the clashes but paired with a new obverse. It is likely that either there was no readily available freshly polished alternate die or, more likely, a new pair was pulled and they mistakenly discarded the new reverse and not the clashed one. That is why it wasn't repolished. The operator thought it was a fresh one.

sweetwilliet · January 20, 2007 9:37AM

Here's another, not a 66 by any means, but looks nice for a 62. I had to revive this thread, I love dmpls.

stev32k · January 20, 2007 9:44AM

<< 

<< 

<< If DMPL Morgans come from new dies there shouldn't be die breaks

>>

I was going to ask about that. It seems strange to me also. The only thing I can think of is that the coin was struck from old dies that were polished? >>

DMPL Morgans come from freshly polished dies. The coins could be from virgin ture first strikes or could be the first productions from repolished dies. A lot of them are repolished after clashing. Nearly all 1882-CC and 1883-CC DMPLs are in that boat. The TPGs do not differentiate among them, nor should they. All are interesting to me as (I guess) a serious DMPL collector. However, a type collector or someone who just wants those first strikes only, would best serve their interests by selecting the coin in hand and certainly never sight-unseen based on a TPG tag. An interesting issue is the 1886 VAM-1C. It is often called 3+2 clashes but was really 3+3. I sent a prooflike to Leroy Van Allen that shows that thie dies for this one were apparently massively clashed at set up of the original virgin dies. What is fascinating is that the obverse was immediately discarded but the reverse was not repolished form the clashes but paired with a new obverse. It is likely that either there was no readily available freshly polished alternate die or, more likely, a new pair was pulled and they mistakenly discarded the new reverse and not the clashed one. That is why it wasn't repolished. The operator thought it was a fresh one. >>

Thanks for the explanation. I kinda thought it might be from a polished older die. The cracks are very narrow in width, but extend quite a ways (on the obverse) and are very hard to see with the naked eye unless you know they are there. I'm guessing this specimen was one of the first from a newly polished die pair. I doubt the dies that made this one could strike many more before coming completely apart.

Kencoin · January 20, 2007 10:26AM

First time putting pictures on here, Hope it works, Ken

Kencoin · January 20, 2007 11:07AM

This Morgan is graded by SEGS MS62 DMPL,

dizzlecc · January 23, 2007 12:19PM

This is a nice virtual collection of coins.

I got this one from a board member. It is really a 8/7 low

sweetwilliet · March 4, 2007 2:50AM

I saw Coxe's photo and had to add my own, not quite as many, but here's my collection of pl/dmpls.

dizzyfoxx · March 4, 2007 2:55AM

<< Mark just did some new images of this one for me.

-------------

etexmike >>

Mike, what's the grade of this beauty?

eyoung429 · March 4, 2007 2:58AM

<< I can't decide which one....

>>

Did I ever mention that YOU SUCKK!!!!!!!

DMPL Morgans - Post a Photo here !!!!

Comments

Leave a Comment