Now this one looks high end MS64, but I can't tell if the photo is playing tricks on my eyes and the PL nature of the surfaces are accentuating the flaws and it is actually MS65. I'm gonna guess, MS64 PL because I think the chatter in the left obverse field in combination with the small ticks and luster grazes on the cheek keep it out of a gem holder.
I'll go with 65PL ...it appears that more chatter in the fields is accepted on prooflike coins...plus the cheek looks fairly clean on this example
I'm going with MS64PL as well. Proof Like '82-S Morgans don't seem to be as common as the previous years. Nice score if it is indeed PL.
I feel the cheek is too nice for 64PL but I can't see it being 65 and 64+PL isn't an option so I'll stick with 64PL
Yeesh, this one is tricky! Your pictures absolutely make it look PL. If it is not designated as such on the holder there are two options: the TPG's messed up, or your pictures are making it look better than it is. Anyways, for the grade: Strike: 66. Full feathers, nearly full hair, this is a good strong strike. Luster: 65PL. As discussed above, the luster definitely appears prooflike in these pics. It looks to be a flashy coin. Eye Appeal: 64. The reverse looks really nice. The obverse has some really ugly hazy, cloudy areas which hurt the eye appeal for me. What really kills it, though, is the spot on her temple. Contact marks: 64? The reverse, again, looks pretty clean. The obverse is hard to tell - the cheek looks fairly clean, but with a few marks. The fields, however, seem to have quite a few tickmarks. As lehigh mentioned, it is really tricky to grade this type of coin, because the prooflike fields tend to magnify every little tick. All this comes out to a 64PL for me, from these pictures. I really wouldn't be surprised by a 65PL, though.
Your analysis mirrors how mine would have been. The holder is a PCGS rattler and one of the loosest I've ever come across. This one may get cracked out and conserved. There is some unappealing brown haze on the obverse that I'm guessing is dip residue. The black spot near her temple thankfully is some sort of debris that was left on the coin an not a carbon spot. The cheek is very clean and the fields have most of the contact marks. Both the obverse and reverse have very flashy fields with decent mirroring, which is why I jumped on it. But in my opinion in hand it falls just short of a true PL, which surprises me that it did not get the designation back in the day. Because it does not have the designation, it makes the decision to crack it an easier one. On a side note, it looks as if some plastic has chipped in the past and is now floating around in the holder, you can see some of it on the reverse just below ES of STATES and WE. I'm guessing these old holders had two layers of plastic? As the debris is floating above the surface of the coin.
Normally I'm against cracking a rattler but this seems like an exception. I stand by '82-S being much less common than the years prior. I'm looking forward to your "after" images.
I have a real internal battle going on as to whether to crack it or not. I did pay a premium for the rattler. I'm into for just under $88.00 with the shipping right now.
Did you pay a premium for the rattler, or did you pay a premium because it is a strong coin? NGC's price guide for a 64 says $90, and if we really think it is a 65PL it is listed at $360. I'd say a strong coin is worth a premium - regardless of the holder.
I paid the premium for the coin and the holder was a benefit. The seller had really good images and I could see the exact flaws that are visible in my images, I just had hoped they were a little less distracting in hand. But I could tell the fields were very reflective. Had it been a typical '82-S I would not have won it as my bidding would have been much lower.
If not prooflike, damn close to it. The first set of pictures accentuated the cameo a bit, I think. Definitely a coin worth a premium, though.
