On this beautiful Sunday afternoon I'm left pondering why TPGs are reluctant to give out a PL or DMPL on so many Morgans that appear to be at least PL. The fields are obivously highly reflective yet they may receive only a star designation or nothing at all. What is the threshold to move up to a PL? I've seen some that reflect words to where they can be read on the coins surface and it's not given a PL. Since the designation increases the value by a lot on most, it would seem these non PL examples that look PL to me would be a huge bargain.
TPGs have a strict criteria for the PL designation. It has gotten tougher over the years. Also, both the obverse and reverse must have the same or greater amount of reflectivity. Just being a reflective coin, in one’s opinion is not sufficient. DMPLs have even tighter criteria. Most Morgans that I see that the average collector thinks should be PL are not sufficiently deep in the depth of the mirrors.
I found this out the hard way. I got a common-date Morgan in a PCGS old holder with PL designation. A PL Morgan specialist at a show explained that this is one case where the old holders are not a value-add -- the coin was PL by the standards of the time, but not today. I think I still ended up flipping the coin for a couple bucks' profit, but it wasn't the win I expected when I got it.
There are multiple factors ranging from the coin has to be all there (obverse and reverse both meet the criteria) to the TPGs just being inconsistent. Another point to consider is that some dates that come with nice mirrors (1880-S, 1881-S, and 1882-S) are sometimes treated more strictly than others. You will find more of those that are very close to PL than most other dates.
1880s, 1881s, and 1882s had better have considerable cameo effect from the die polish in order to get a PL designation in a new or fairly new holder by either PCGS or NGC. Those dates need to actually look like a proof coin, have incredible luster, and a hammered strike as well. For DMPL for early San Francisco mint coins, expect it to look like an Ucam coin in terms of contrast. Here is a recently certified DMPL, 1881s, graded MS 66. It looks more like a real proof Morgan. It is not my coin, but is up for sale for 3 grand.
This is one I can’t bring myself to sell. I really like the contrast between the obverse and reverse which I think is PL. I thought it might have been bag contact that caused the toning but it was suggested and makes more sense that it was the end of a roll.
It is a pretty coin. The obverse is end roll toned. I agree that the reverse is proof like looking. The obverse does not look prooflike, but it is attractive.
