GTG—1885 Morgan

63PL

only because of minor nicks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay, the reveal. Photos don’t really capture the coin that well— it isn’t as “noisy” as it may seem. I agree with the grade assigned, but think it is probably low in grade for a 65, but high in reflectivity, with very deep mirrors. To me, it was extremely close to DMPL, as many pointed out. Paid 64 money, so am happy. Could have just as easily imagined it in a 64 DMPL holder.

Thanks for opinions.

 

That's a generous grade, my opinion, even for a "market grade." Still, I like the coin a lot. Your pictures--which are outstanding, if I might observe--show a certain survivor determinism, or sustenance. That is to say, there's no way this girl should have been put through this, not with that delicate, PL, complexion. Still, she's a very handsome one for it, luster-scars and all. That's one tough old girl you got there, dudester.

 

That's definitely one you have to see in hand, it sure throws off the DPL vibe in the photo's. I bet the fields are very deep in hand. She's still a beauty!!

 

BTW, is that a clash of an arrow tip coming off the bottom of her cap extending into the field?

 

I agree and I am a bit surprised that the label says PL. Coins with strong toning usually don’t make PL. But strike and eye-appeal are great, luster also seems to be good, so 65 is a reasonable grade. I’d have called it a 64+

 

I was gonna say 64+ but I noticed it was in a slab that predated the + designation so I went with MS64. I think most people agree that the coin is high end 64 or low end 65.

 

I have owned many heavily toned coins that were PL. TPGs can grade toned proof like coins accurately. This one has minimal toning.

 

63

 

That's a beauty!

 

I agree with @Lehigh96 on this being a high end 64. I don't think it would pass at CAC in the 65 holder, but most certainly would at 64. I guessed DPL, because of the very dark spots I saw in the fields. I certainly have no qualms with a PL designation, it looks like it's very close to DPL, but just not quite there.

 

Well according to my method this is proof like but not a proof. Also my system says its a 65. It could be a high 64 but Ill go with 65. I'm not as good on these common Morgans but I think I am pretty close. I have been doing a lot of gold deals for some private clients so I am rusty grading.
So for the record I am at MS65 proof like.

 

^he's back.....

 

The Answer to the OP's question is....


The Question was...

 

...and I was busy selling proof Trade dollars to Chinese businessmen, so I didn’t have much time to learn how to grade either. Lol

 

I heard with 6 you get egg roll!

 

MS-63 PL. but since you ignored me, my opinion does not matter.

 

How can you tell PL or DMPL from pictures? Seems very difficult to discern ha

 

I missed this one but looking at the op photos I wasn't sure if the left field on the obverse was up to PL standard but after looking at the reverse the same haze is evident so I'll assume it's reflection of something in the room. Most of the noise on the obverse looks like breaks in the frost so I'm at MS65 being correct and trust Morgandude that's it's correct at PL as well. Pretty girl!

 

I agree with you--it was ambient light in the room. The coin is to me a 65 PL, although a bit on the low side of 65. It does have attractiveness, though, and that is why I bought it--not that many nice looking 1885 PLs in gem grade out there that look attractive. As far as PL, it definitely makes the grade in that department--in fact, it might have had a shot a DMPL under the older, more lenient standards. All in all, it is a welcome addition. Thanks for the feedback, folks.