Morgan people who like toned DMPLs

Hey Morgan lovers--just happened to notice this one, in browsing the Morgans on fleabay. I think the pictures of the coin do not do it justice--this is just a feeling on my part. The combination of a fairly clean DMPL and the toning, and a fairly low pop makes this one desirable in my eyes. Just a heads up for some of my friends. I have several of that date, including DMPLs, so not looking, but if I were, I'd take a chance on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1885-O-Morg...656074?hash=item28114880ca:g:Nx4AAOSwG-1Wv5o3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Those images can't possibly be a good representation given the grade.

 

That is either a lousy photo or a lousy coin.

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

Pic #3 sure looks a lot nicer than pic #1 (of the obverse)...

 

My guess, and this is based on the fact that it is an awful set of photographs is that is a beautiful coin. Just get that feeling-- I would take a chance, as the lighting on the coin is the pits. DMPLs are hard as hell to photograph, but the reverse shot hints at a nicely toned, highly reflective, well- struck coin.

 

What do you think of the price?

 

Fair price. It sold in a Heritage auction for $329, and price guide has it at $400.

 

The fields on the obverse look awful. Agreed, for the money and with any Return/BBP you should be OK.

BTW, love that name....fleabay .

 

This coin is a pretty good teaching moment for what digital imagery does to a coin's look, and the images aren't all that deceptive to the experienced evaluator. I'm not sure it'd Bean at 64, but it isn't unworthy of the grade. For a start, in the first image, give less weight to anything on the devices that looks "black." Those are frost breaks; if they were that deep, they'd be reflecting light and therefore "bright" instead of dark. The other obverse pic is closer to the probable look.

One advantage to angled images, which we usually dislike, is that they really highlight marks deep enough to matter to a grader. Ain't many to be seen here.

 

It very well might be quite attractive. Hard to say with the pictures. It's also very hard to take pictures of toned, DMPL Morgans. If you try to show the depth of the mirrors, you either lose the toning or the toning interferes with it and you get a confusing picture, like the first one. Likewise, if you try to shoot just the toning, even without the slab giving you glare, you don't get a good feeling for depth of mirrors. Bottom line is that this needs to be seen in hand, and a return policy accomplishes that. The price, which is $50 over what it sold for at Heritage, is break-even, assuming the seller bought it from Heritage and is paying full freight for eBay and PayPal fees. That may be a little bit of a red flag, as setting a BIN price at break-even is sort of a "get me out of this coin" move.

 

At least he's serious about getting market bids for the coin. I'll never understand listing the coin at a ridiculously high price and then re-listing it repeatedly as the coin collects dust.

I don't know why people don't use the Make An Offer option or set bidding at a low level with a reserve.

 

I agree completely. The pictures are awful, as it is very had to get a good shot of a DMPL--even if one goes to manual settings, the reflectivity will fool even the best metering system in any camera. The angle shot of the back would be my best guess as to how the coin really looks. It is definitely highly reflective and the surfaces of the reverse look clean. The obverse straight on shot is dreadful--is that toning, reflectivity that fooled the meter of the camera, or just some rough surfaces? Given the grade, I would think it is just a terrible photograph. I think it is an exposure situation with the camera--awful photography. I'd take a chance on that coin for that price. If I didn't have that date as both a PL and a DMPL, I would have pulled the trigger already. Nothing to risk, as there is a return policy.

 

I think there's a book on how to buy/grade coins from pictures or something to that effect. Don't have it nor have I read it, any of you ?

 

Grading Coins By Photographs, by QDB. It's basically a new version of the old Photograde book that avoids using what is now PCGS's trademark. It's not a book on how to read photos of coins so that you can arrive at a grade without seeing the coin in hand. I haven't tried using the book, but I imagine that it works fine for circulated grades and has the same shortcomings all books do for uncirculated coins. There are some well-written reviews on Amazon.

 

People are running after CC DMPLS and PL coins. Unless one is specifically a CC collector, that makes little sense, as many of the O mint and P mint DMPLS and PLs have LOWER pops--that is due to the fact that even though the dates are common, the Prooflike and Mirrorlike coins are less common, given the GSA horde. Also, it is harder to find a nice O mint DMPL, given the weaker strikes.

 

VERY useful info, thanks MD !!

 

I use the Heritage archives to develop relative scarcity ideas about the percentage of PL/DMPL's for a given year. Their archive is large enough to be an appropriate sample size. The exact number isn't accurate, in the sense that you'd expect disproportionate representation because PL/DMPL's are "Heritage" kind of coins, but for comparative purposes it's a nice resource. The more common types reach or exceed 10+% (combined PL/DMPL) of the total offered for that year/mint, and the scarcer ones are down around 5-6%.

There are just over 280,000 Morgans in the archive. 14,842 are noted as PL (5.3%) and 10,445 as DMPL (3.7%). For 1885-O, just about exactly 6% (306) of the 5k+ noted are PL, and 299 DMPL. That makes 1885-O one of the more common PL/DMPL issues, and the near-equality of PL's and DMPL's indicates it a pretty easy issue for DMPL. That year's Philly issues actually see DMPL's significantly outnumbering PL's, and fully 19% of the total offered has one designation or the other.

Contrast that with - for instance - 1879-P, whose PL/DMPL percentage combined is just 7.7% of the total offered.

 

So 5-10% of MSDs are PL/DMPL depending on if the Year/Mint is common or rate, right ?

Any idea what the split is between PL vs. DMPL/DPL ?

That was quick !! Great information, thanks !!

Best DMPLs to look for if you have $500 to spend ? $1,000 ?

Love these posts, keep 'em coming...learning alot !

 

Don't forget, those figures are comparative only and almost certainly do not represent the true percentage of extant coins with those attributes. They tend to be more valuable than their lesser counterparts and therefore more likely to appear at Heritage. I have no basis for concrete conclusion but it seems likely the're overstated relative to actual population by at least 2 to 1 and likely far more.

 

I think what you are saying is: the best coins, and those most likely to grade PL/DMPL... are the ones graded and/or submitted to HA....so there is some submittance bias, am I right ?