So we have only one that called this as PCGS did. @Evan Saltis I think many more would have said the same if my photos would have shown more of the actual mirror this coin has. What a pain. The surfaces do read up to 7+ inches. And the reverse shows a little bit clearer than the obverse. Here are some photos from 7" away. What you are seeing in the reflection is this. @Lehigh96 you should have stuck to your guns.
Well...I was a little late to the party here. I was gonna say 63PL. My thought was it's too baggy to go any higher and the photos didn't make it look like the PL was strong enough to be DMPL. But, they are super hard to photograph. So, I was close.
What are the specifics nowadays for a DMPL. Isn't it 4 to 6 inches? Or, has the market changed those specifics?
PCGS states that a DMPL has to have clear reflectivity of at least 6 inches. It cannot have any distortion or die polish lines that would interfere with the reflectivity. So unless the fields are nearly perfectly flat it won't qualify anymore. PL has to have clear reflectivity of at least 2-4 inches. A misty effect or striations may impede the reflectivity.
LOL...no worries. I don't mind giving my honest assessment based on the photos even after the grade is revealed. Actually, with the photos you posted showing the reflectivity (using the cigarette box)...I would have said DMPL. Much clearer there than in the original photos. Surfaces like that are SO hard to photograph.
The reveal photos are better at showing reflectivity than the straight on beauty contest shots. It was clear that the coin was proof like, but the difference between PL and DMPL is virtually impossible to clearly determine from most photographs. Also, straight on photographs show every single mark, and exaggerate minor faults. It is a really attractive coin.