GTG: 1878s Morgan

Okay, reveal. It is a 63 PL. I think, slightly undergraded. The cheek marks are not as pronounced as the photograph makes them to be. This coin is a beast with the mirrors, as the die polish really got in there, and created massive reflectivity. I would bet it is extremely close to DPL, as it is up there with some of my graded DMPLs. For those who are less experienced with Morgan PL, and DMPL coins, die polish lines are expected, and not a detraction. 1878s is a hard date to get nice PL coins, for some reason, in my past experience—a lot harder than the 80s, 81s, and 83s Morgans. This one is nicely PL. I probably would have graded it 63+ DPL.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

To me that is an above average 63, (guess my 63+ guess already was saying that).

 

Wow, I thought for sure it would be a 64. Definitely on the high end of the 63 spectrum.

 

Yeah, I agree. I am more concerned whether or not it is DPL. It is so close—could have easily gone either way. I bought it for the absolutely huge mirrors. I am fine with the grade, as I paid under book for it, and think NGC was a bit tough with it. The coin fits nicely into my PL and DMPL collection.

 

Guess I'm in the minority here...still having trouble seeing this as better than a 62+. Maybe I'd agree in hand.

 

I think you haven’t been through as many Morgans as I have. I’ve owned over 2,000 of them. PLs look different than other bright white Morgans. The process that creates them, with the intrusion of die polish lines creates marks that one learns to ignore, as part of the process in creating the coin, itself. Also, deep mirrors exaggerate faults in photographs. It is brutal to capture a DMPL or PL in ordinary photos.

 

Here is a DMPL not of the same date, but very similar. I think the 78s is DMPL.

 

I agree completely. Its a learning curve. Once you realize its a PL or DMPL, you have to adjust your viewing of the photos. These coins, just like proofs themselves, will magnify greatly any faults. You simply cannot judge them like you do business strikes. Theoretically a coin should be graded based upon condition. However, many dings are hidden in matte business strike photograph, where they are highlighted with PL coins. Therefore, your eye will automatically downgrade a PL coin if you have been looking at non-PL for a while. In hand this makes more sense, along with looking at tons of both types of coins for years.

Dang, I am starting to sound like a US collector. Patina, Eid Mar denarius, Elagabalus, etc.

 

This is the kind of coin I look for...one that is way better than the label on the slab and can sometimes be had for a discount. It's a real beauty.

PL Morgan's are hard to photograph and every tiny flaw just jumps out in photos. I suspect this is the source of the criticism.

 

Well I have bought morgans for 25 years in TPG holders....and I'm usually close or on in GTGs. That's why this one bugs me a bit. I totally understand die polish and how PL fields photogragh. Its the cheek and jaw that hold my personal grade down. I'm not intending to be critical. For some reason this one, well, its a nice coin, but I'm still trying to figure it out.
You all can roll your eyes at me, that's fine.

 

The cheek and jaw are no worse than 99% of the 63-64 Morgan PLs. I don’t know what you are seeing. I have even owned 65s with almost as many minor marks. Has to be the photograph, what else can I say? At any rate, I am happy with it. Not criticizing you, but as a major collector of Morgans, the appearance of this coin is very typical of PL and DMPL Morgans.

 

Too late I am, but it’s a nice coin!

 

All lot of these guys are seeing a break in frost as damage to the coin which is seen more in hand than in pictures. I personally dont see it as a DMPL but I am sure you have more examples than I ever OWNED but in my opinion it is as I had said a 63PL. Ever onward brother

 

I reckon I'm having an off day. Just wondered why I'm out of line with the concensus. I'm still trying to shake off the last of the virus. I agree that my first guess was too low. Carry on...thanks for posting.