thanks chris.......so since the reverse is not toned I just hold something 6 inches away and try to read it? should I be able to read it or can the letters be blurry? one last question, is my dealer going to take offense if I try to do the test in his shop?
And for the rest of us who have no idea why you posted this... REQUEST: mods, shouldn't this thread be merged with whatever thread these guys were talking in.
I pm'd him and ask him if its possible to have a DPL Morgan with a fully toned obverse. Chris was just being nice and helping out. Thanks
Well of course it can. And to maybe keep this thread relevant to everybody, what made you think that it couldn't. Did you think the toning would block the mirror-like surfaces?
Also this might help you out with undestanding things about DMPL's/DPL's and PL's. http://coinauctionshelp.com/proof-dmpl-pl-morgan_dollar-identification.html Also here are the TPG's grading standards of DMPL's/DPL's and PL's PL-Prooflike NGC - reflectivity at 2-4 inches PCGS - reflectivity at 2 inches DMPL/DPL-Deep Mirror Prooflike NGC - reflectivity at 6-8 inches PCGS - reflectivity at 4-6 inches
I believe it would still be considered a PL coin. That is just a guess though. They might take it case by case basis, depending on each coin's overall appearance, and how far away it is from 6, so maybe closer to 6 than it is to 5, it gets the DMPL.
I never seen that reference before, it seems pretty good, but I do have one problem with it. The article continuously associates frost (contrast) with PL and DMPL coins. With quotes like this: That is 100% false. While yes, cameo contrast is common on PL and DMPL coins, it is not a requirement. The only requirement is the clear reflectivity of the fields. It depends on many factors, but that can be a reason for a coin to receive a star.
You know raider, I'm guilty as charged on this one, I haven't proof read the whole entire write up yet, but from what I had read it seemed good, thanks for pointing that out. BUT, I don't think they meant cameo when they said cameo if that made sense. I honestly think they meant mirror like, and reflective services. Maybe not knowing fully what cameo on the coin meant? I don't know for sure though on that one.
Well the local dealer has a very nice and undergraded Morgan (IMO) that he isnt sure if its DMPL. he is 84 years old and the coin has obviously been there forever judging by the fading of the holder its in. I asked him about it today and he said he dont know what a grading company would say. its very reflective and I will try to test it tommorow. I would like to hear from a dealer if its offensive to do the test in the shop or not?
I would say that it wouldn't be offensive, especially if the dealer isn't sure about it. Just ask him if you can see the coin get a piece of paper or a page of a book or something of that sort, and do the test.
Prooflike Coins test. It can be tough to judge the reflectivity with toned coins, but it is possible.
thanks tmoney.......should I be bale to read it? the coin is $65 thats why I worry about it not being PL.........shouldnt it cost more?
That depends on a lot of things, like what year it is, what mintmark, if it is graded, by who, etc... Your being able to read the lettering question was answered on page 1, by the way
DimeFreak it would not be anymore offensive then pulling out your loop to look at it. If your looking to buy a coin...look away I'd say. Good luck on the purchase as it sounds nice.
Since you're from Canada, I guess I should have posted this in World Coins. Right? I think you owe me an apology for assuming that this is a duplication from another thread...............apology accepted...........thanks! Chris