Options
1898 O Morgan DMPL or just PL?
tydye
Posts: 3,894 ✭✭✭
Another Morgan crossed my path today. It is toned and hard to photograph but the fields are mirrored.
0
Comments
.
to help out here
the direct photograph of the obverse isn't toning, it is the mint grease/sawdust that is on the surfaces. one of my favorite type of surfaces on coins, usually means it has not been messed with.
check out the 1889 CC on coin facts. It is ultra-high grade with an amazing amount of the grease/sawdust still on the surfaces, extremely sexy. from my very basic research, the grease was applied so that the coins wouldn't stick to the dies and/or allow them to eject easily preventing a whole mess of problems ie mint errors.
.
.
the definition of pl vs dmpl is "distance" for the reflectivity from the eyes with some cameo etc definitions including the amount of "luster" "frost" on the devices for obv/rev.
dmpl i think is usually 8-10"
defining DMPLvsPLvsCameo etc is highly speculative and as the dies wore out the percentage or degree of reflectivity/frost/luster decreases producing tens of or even hundreds of thousands of "in-between" surfaces with many obverses better than reverses and reverses better than obverses
the dmpl surfaces would be early die states and they were business strikes and put into mint sealed bags and also sustained "table marks" from the sorting tables at the mints.
i had some images of the sorting tables with actual mint employees sorting but can't find them as of late, hmm.
.
.
.
awe heck, i'll just save you all the trouble
here is the phenomenal 1889 CC
yummah yummah for mah tummah
I am thinking it is an ms 68 - i love it isn't one of those BS stripped down white "supposed" original surfaces that everyone knows virtually cannot exist - maybe a few white ones, but highly unlikely
without further ado, ty to PCGS for sharing this with us