I sent this in for grading almost certain it would be PL and it came back just MS65. I know it's hard to tell from the picture, but at what point does the mirroring become PL? I thought I was getting fairly good at this, I had it pegged at MS64+ PL.
Sure looks PL to me. Remember, if any single area is not « frosty enough » for the graders, it doesn’t qualify for the PL designation. @Morgandude11 let us know what you think please
Same here. Don't they do the mirror-reflectivity tests anymore...something like at 4 inches for PL and then at 6 inches for DMPL, etc...if I'm recalling correctly...? Maybe it was 2 inches and 4 inches.
Frosty enough ? WoW !! I'd hate to be the guy on that Duty . "Hey what do you do? " " I check for frostiness .
I think the coin is extremely close to PL. The obverse definitely is PL. There is a tiny weakness in the reverse, in terms of cameo, and reflectivity. I think the reverse is the reason it did not make it. It is hard to tell from TrueViews, as they don’t depict a PL or DMPL coin well. Remember that 1880s, and 1881s are the most strictly graded coins in the Morgan series. It is a really nice coin, but PCGS graded it very tough. No, they don’t use the “read the letters at 6” away” test—that is an urban legend. It is a judgement call. I’ve had many Morgans on the fence just like this one, and it can go either way. I agree with the 65 grade, by the way.
"According to PCGS standards, a coin’s surface is Prooflike when there is a clear reflection in the fields on both sides as viewed from two to four inches away." "A cloudy effect or striations may impede the reflectivity." From the PCGS website. my guess, it doesn't make the cut for the reflectivity although it does clearly have cameo contrast. And it could be just one side that doesn't make the cut.
