Distance for DMPL?

I am led to believe that the target was of no minority, with the possible exception of the “race” of ugly Hawaiian shirt wearers, but your point is valid - terms need definitions in a contemporary manner. You and I have the mutual freedom to disagree on an ad hoc basis without assuming either ill will nor a particular pattern for other issues.

That said, I will reveal my pattern - if I cannot discern a logical basis for a belief, I feel compelled to critically probe it, even if my “gut feel” initially leaves me sympathetic to it. “Just because I like it” leaves me unimpressed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It wasn't the target, rather the contemporary socially accepted popular culture meaning of the term itself.

 

Invoking “popular culture” is very seldom persuasive for me, much less “socially accepted”. I’ve used this line before, but I am a counter-counter-counter-counter cuturalist, which basically means I seek to offend “socially accepted” just on the principle of it.

 

And one can surely have an intellectual discussion with some troll that uses such great reasoning:

 

Regardless that is how terms and acronyms get their meanings. Language at it's roots is nothing more than socially accepted meanings and many popular culture terms end up in the dictionary later on. There is no hard science of a language other than what society says a word or term is. People can go against that, but it must be defined prior to usage in those cases

 

UDM is a pretty good acronym as well. There is a pretty strict standard which Anacs adheres to, before labeling a Morgan as such. They dont just wave there finger in front of a coin and guess. Like PCGS does nowadays. These coins have stronger mirrors than what you would find on a proof Morgan Dollar..Furthermore, there are only a select few specific dates that have ever met the qualifications needed to achieve this Ultra High designation. Those dates are-
1880 S, 1884 O, 1883 CC, 1884 CC. Thats it. So, acting like you know better than the people who have experience with these coins is just more of your hypcrotical kiddie games you like to play..Putting PCGS CAC up on some pedestal and making ignorant blanket statements is what weve come to expect from you. Then when you cant win the argument you deflect, or make some offtopic comment as your reply. If that doesnt work you go get your big brother Lehigh.

 

Obverse only UDMs are worth a premium over a normal business strike. Maybe not to you, but to some people. Especially if it is a rarer date in PL+

Insider is highly knowledgeable and well respected. For sure.

At the end of the day, Messydesk is just some (highly respected and very knowledgeable) bloke. He's not the TPG. He's not the published standard. You said the standard had changed - I showed that it had not.

I also stated that the *interpretation* of the standard, or how it was applied, may have changed. The standard itself has been constant at least since the earliest reference I can find, 1997, as described earlier.

And, you'll see that John makes reference to Van Allen's standard - as I mentioned earlier, many authors have many different suggestions for what the standard should be.

Point granted. I had not seen that press release before. But, you'll also note as appropriate to this thread: the standard is exactly the same.

You'll notice that post was not by NGC. It was by another hobbyist. He is not the authority. Depending on which book you read about prooflike coins, each author has their own opinion on what the standard should be. Read Halperin, Van Allen, QDB, ANA... each one says something different.

Just because Victor posted something on an NGC forum does not mean that was the NGC standard.

At this point, I really don't see any point in continuing arguing about this.

 

My hypothesis is that “authorities” simply fail to exist. All that exists are poseurs that may or may not achieve Keplerian orbit fairly close to “Planet Authority”. Some people have Mercurian orbits, but most are pertaining to Uranus.

 

Lol

 

The fact you think that they're just "guessing" says all we need to know.

For such an "expert" I would have expected you to know better than to post this misinformation.

Off the top of my head 1881 CC and 1878 S have at least one UDM from ANACS as well but what do I know.

I just glanced on eBay and oh look there is an 1885-O too.

But please keep telling me how much you know about these

PCGS CAC does mean more than your opinion. It's also two expert opinions from multiple companies vs one.

 

To some certainly and that's fine. I just find the whole one sided designation with how they labeled it to be silly. Are we to assume the reverse is DMPL since they said the Obverse is UDM? If you're going to label one side with what is supposed to be a value adder like that at least label the other as well

 

Thanks for helping make my point for me!!
The point was, that only a handful of dates ever met the strict criteria needed, for this "special" designation. They not equal to the NEW pcgs dmpl. LMAO. What a lame......

 

Which is because.......overwhelmingly the best of them get submitted to PCGS and NGC NOT ANACS but hey why let facts get in the way.

It's common knowledge that PL/DMPL/CAM/DCAM standards have TIGHTENED over the years. There's without question PCGS and NGC DMPLs that would be an ANACS UDM today.

By no means is the date list as restrictive as you try and make it out to be nor the population just because ANACS only gets a small percentage of the best coins.

 

Absolutely indisputable. When they started with that quarter-round top slab, the only guys left sending them were VAMmers and guys even cheaper than I am. I suppose I still have an account with ANACS, but I can't imagine why I'd want to use it.

 

That was a pretty good comeback but its NOT the reason why. I'll ask again, since you didnt respond the 1st time-
Do you now, or have you EVER owned a UDM? If that answer is no- then you are just full of hot air and a know-it-all attitude.
I have, remember that part about having a coin in-hand versus judging from photos??
Its not even a debate at this point - its the truth. Only certain die pairs were EVER eligible for the designation. . If you go to Heritage auctions, and look at the past sales for 83/84 Carson City UDMs you'll notice they all came from the same die pairs. But hey, im sure you wont put any footwork in, since facts would get in the way of your delusional stance here

 

Is there a picture for this? I have an idea of what this refers to, but my idea may be of something else altogether.

 

I don't have one in my possession right now to show you. Sorry about that.

 

Best picture I have to show this is actually not a US coin. The fields on this one are so reflective that there were some really interesting reactions with the fields and the slab. It produced this pretty cool image - which looks like its floating: