I just wanted to get opinions on the "Prooflike" PL designation that NGC uses. What has to happen to have this applied to a coin? I ask because these two coins look basically the same in person, regarding the strike and finish. One is marked PL and one isn't. I personally wouldn't call either PL. Anyway, why does the 2019D get the honors? I know NGC's images are not flattering, but here they are:
It'd be nice if they used some kind of objective, quantifiable metric to make these types of determinations.... like using a light meter to measure reflectivity or the like. But, it's probably just some dude staring at it and thinking, "Mehhhhhh, Yahhh, dat's kinda wike a pwoof! I'm feewing genewous today!". Or maybe not, I have no idea how it's done.
Not so. There is a certain amount of reflectivity that TPGs use to give the PL designation to a coin. It is’t arbitrary, nor is it frivolous, as your reply to the OP indicated.
There needs to be some distance from which the mirrors reflect (I don't think NGC published that distance and I'm not sure if it differs from something like a Morgan, which is what we commonly associate with PL & DMPL). Also, both sides need to meet that minimum reflectivity to get the designation. In the photos, the 2019 Kennedy suggests it has slightly better mirrors. But that is just my interpretation of the photos. The TPGs don't always get the designation correct and it seems to be less consistent on coins that aren't Morgans. I've seen a handful that looked to be PL but did not get it.
I do wonder if maybe the grader had a beer at lunch, and was feeling generous. But it's nice to understand there is a certain checklist.
I would have to find the article but there are striations that you can see only under magnification in the fields of a PL coin. Once the die has been polished the coin won't display these striations anymore. I have an email from Warren at RCNH where he explained this. I can't tell you what exactly to look for under magnification. But it is either there or it isn't. And I'll go look for that again because I know someone will come along like they always do and claim I'm wrong.
The standard they use for determining PL uses distance of reflectivity, however, this differs based on the coin. The more common prooflike surfaces are for the date/MM, the higher the bar is to get the designation. As a result, some dates will need what would be DPL for another date just to get a PL designation. Other dates will get a PL where the surfaces would not merit it on a date where it wasn't scarce. This is for US coins where the population of PL coins is well understood. For world coins it is an order of magnitude harder to get the PL designation. For a long time, world coins were ineligible for the designation, and afterwards they didn't always check. The bar for world coins now is generally pretty high. For this reason if you see a world coin with PL from NGC, take notice.
From your photos it’s difficult to tell as it may be a reflection from your light source. The top coin is a 66 but it reflects more light. The bottom coin is a 67 but there is less light coming off of the coin. The PL grade is given to the reflection of light on the coin.
The photos aren't great, I agree, but they are the NGC images (better than I could probably do). https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/coins/2813016/ https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/coins/2804378/ I'm not sure what's up with the background on the 22D. Only time I've seen something other than a white background.
I think you may have it backwards. Early strikes from polished dies are reflective. As the dies wear, radials appear - the writer incorrectly calls them striations. The article says that some "genius" at a TPGC decided that when a used die is polished, the radials (striations) may remain under magnification so the coin cannot have PL reflectivity so it's not a "true" PL. Of course, this is plain BS generated by some ex-dealer who now graded professionally back then. PL is measured by the depth of reflectivity from the surface. Folks use all kinds of ways to measure it and unfortunately those same "geniuses" often require different depths of reflectivity for different dates in order to make rate the PL designation. If you have not figured out my distain for many dealers, it's because their goal is to keep you ignorant and make grading (for them establishing its value not its true condition) very complicated so that you need them.
Thanks for the reference. There's a bit to argue with there perhaps, but it's still good info. I particularly enjoyed the implications about OGHs and the like, and this isn't the first clue that they're not necessarily all they're cracked up to be.
This guy, Warren Mills, was recently recognized in coin world as one of the most influential in numismatics. This is the only dealer in NH that i deal with. If I have a question, I go there.
BTW, so was I. Nevertheless, the terminology he used is incorrect. This does not change the recognition he deserves. I'm far from perfect and I'll bet Mr. Mills would say the same about himself.
