1921 Peace Dollar - PL? Grade? Value?

Is this 1921 Morgan Dollar considered a PL? The photo is cut at the top and it's not a clipping on the coin... just to be clear. What would you grade this as? Any specific regular strike varieties? I couldn't find any on PCGS's online catalog, but maybe it's listed somewhere.

Also, I saw on PCGS's online catalog that there are special strikes known as the "Zerbe Special Strike" and the "Chapman". This one probably isn't that, but how does it compare to it?

And, going back to the PL strike, I understand that over the years the coin may lose its cameo appearance if the coin is not stored or handled appropriately. What would a DMPL Morgan that lost its cameo appearance look like - at best, shiny and mirrored on all the devices and fields?

Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Wrong coin in title, not sure how to change it!





Here are the other strikes that were mentioned. Pics from the 'net.


Regular Strike:




Proof-Like:




Deep Mirror Proof-Like



Chapman:




Zerbe:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For some reason, 1921 Morgans are really hard to find in Proof-Like.

The coin you show is a polished, circulated, fingerprinted example worth about silver value. It is not PL.

 

How do you tell from a Zerbe to a regular 21 Morgan ? What to look for ?

Thanks

 

There are die markers next to the 2nd U of Unum. Go to Vamworld or do a simple Google search and you will magically become in-the-know

 

Sorry but your 21 is a CLASSIC example of an over dipped morgan. I mean this one should be a sticky to show people exactly what one looks like for future reference. I know it's not what you want to hear but that coin can be a great educational tool about the dangers of commercial silver dips. The idiot didn't even wear gloves and just thumb dipped it

 

My 1921 Peace dollars don't look anything like these.

 

I have to completely disagree. There is no photographic evidence whatsoever here regarding dipping; in fact, the fingerprint argues against it. An overdip will remove fingerprints; heck, a "good" dip usually does. Either way, dipping would remove the haze on the surfaces.

 

Really dave, you don't think so huh. I over dipped one a while ago and the halo of faux frost surrounding the devices is exactly how that one turned out albeit though it wasn't a 21 if that makes a difference. The fingerprint, I was mentally postulating, was put there after the coin dried while the stripped surfaces were fresh.

But there is absolutely no way I'm questioning you on this, that's for sure ... This thread just got more interesting

 

I'm guessing it's because of the transition year to the Peace Dollar (which is why my title is incorrect... was thinking that instead).

Yeah, super rare variety here.

Maybe the original photos aren't too good.

Perhaps it will look differently in-person, or with much better photos.

Up close and in-person, it's not hard to tell a dipped coin.

But photos are typically a struggle for me.

I don't see cartwheel luster, but I also see a lot of haze.

So, I'm unsure of what's going on by the photos alone.

And, can someone please let me know how to change the title of this thread? It's off by a bit lol.

 

It's not possible to tell a coin which was dipped correctly, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Dip is acid, and removes anything from the surface of a coin - including haze - and when overdone the result does not really reflect light. Kinda like some Mint State nickel which doesn't really show luster. Further, there will be no contrast, no difference, between the finish on the fields and the devices.

 

Well the coin does look cleaned, but since it appears to have circulated a bit, is it possible the high point luster has been rubbed away and produced this dipped look? From the images shown, I can't really say 100% without a doubt one way or the other.
I'm curious to hear others opinions on this,but, I have a feeling Sdave is gonna be outnumbered on this one... Sorry Dave

 

I couldn't care less if I'm "outnumbered." It only proves you guys haven't seen overdipped coins before. Me, I've overdipped them myself, so I know what they look like. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt. This ain't what an overdipped coin looks like, regardless of your opinion.

Heck, the images themselves aren't up to telling you anything whatsoever about the quality of the surfaces, aside the haze and contrast between different places on the coin proving it's not overdipped.

 

And this is why I ain't arguing with dave. If he says I'm wrong then there's a 99% chance that I am. Still looking for that 1% though SD

Dave, if not over dipped I'm thinking the surfaces had to have been messed with another way. Do you think that mark just below RIB could be embedded slag someone was trying to remove without knowing what it was? I know better pictures are required. I'm just thinking out loud here

 

Conceivably. Another possibility is a planchet defect or a postmint hit. Whatever it is, it's not something dip would remove. Dipping is no good for surface encrustations. It's for removing chemical surface alterations like toning, carbon spots and milkspots.

Don't forget, dip is acid and literally removes metal from the coin. By the time you can call a coin "overdipped," there's nothing foreign left on the surfaces, unlike the coin above which has toning and a fingerprint. Sure, it may have been dipped before, but all that stuff hides any evidence even if it were there.

This is an exaggerated image, and I don't really think dip caused it because of the darker contrast of the letters, but this is a good approximation of what an overdipped surface looks like:

 

I was merely posing a question, so, you don't think it's POSSIBLE this coin has been altered somehow? Whether it's by being dipped, cleaned, washed, or stripped?

 

Yes, absolutely possible. Likely, even. Not enough evidence in the images to define anything for certain, though.

 

Alright, youre still my favorite super hero then....

 

The lighting/exposure on the OP's original picture of the '21 Morgan seems to be way off. IMO, I doubt that coin looks anything like that picture. I'll bet the exposure was modified, trying to hide the staining on both sides of the coin.

 

Do they look like scans to you guys? Scan pics can do funky things to coins

 

I will get the coin and take better pictures.

Maybe give it an acetone bath first...