Sure looks PL to me?????

1882-S is a tricky PL year. There aren't many great DMPLs for the year, many are one sided and have a dish bowl look. Due to breaks in the mirrors some that are labeled PL/DMPL now would not get the designation today. I would say based on the image it would not get a PL now. The year comes with a die pair that has an exceptionally deep reverse, if yours had that it might pull it up to PL.

Edit. I looked at the pics a little more and don't the the reverse is PL. I think I have 5 of these in DMPL, I'll try and post one later. Bottom line it is not the most impressive year, the worst of the early S mints for overall look and mirrors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have the 79s 80s and 81s in PL, and it is very, very close. When I held them in hand, the 82s kind of looks proof like--very very hard to say. The picture doesn't capture it well. I am not concerned, as it really makes little difference, and as I said before, this gives me 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882 S all in MS 64-65 OGHs, and three of them are designated PL. So, I accept it as it is, and am happy to have that subset of OGHs.

 

What's to trash? It's a nice looking Morgan. I would be proud to own it, crack it, and 2x2 it. :thumb:

 

It is very frosty. I am a novice, but on my screen it looks PL.

 

Which is why it's difficult to determine PL or DMPL from an image online.

The reflectivity has to be 8 inches.