It doesn't have the PL moniker on the label, not that it matters since the visual attributes of the coin are so pronounced with or without the PL label. Has a minor bag mark in the obverse field knocking it out of gem status. Given a choice between full gem and near gem PL at around the same price point, which would you pick?
It's tough because generally one will be much rarer than the other. All things being equal, however, I'd go with the PL, or both.
Give me prooflike or give me death. ...just kidding. It depends on the coins. Some 64PLs will have superior eye appeal and characteristics compared to some 65’s, and vice versa. Coin by coin basis which one wins overall.
Agree. Kind of the same principle behind many AU58s looking superior to MS62s with nasty abrasions but no high point wear.
I think in most cases I'd go with a near-gem PL over a full gem non-PL, but I suppose that depends, on a case-by-case basis.
PL surfaces show marks a lot more, but they are graded like business strikes and not like proofs where the grading accounts for the different surfaces. To me, a PL coin generally has the eye appeal of a coin about 1 to 1.5 grades higher, so an MS64PL is easily equivalent to an MS65 in that way. But eye appeal is only one factor. The real question is how rare a PL coin of that type is versus a 65. If gems are generally available but PL examples are rare, perhaps any grade PL coin would be a better pickup than a 65.
That is very true, a great example, from the recent Stack's NYINC auction. Possibly the only PL example out there. I bid, but was knocked-out by the reserve. All-in would not have had a problem going $3,200 but with premiums a bit pricey for a coin not one, but several points below what similar priced higher graded pieces would fetch without the PL designation: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-FLYAR
Here's something else to consider. Depending on the issue, I feel like at least some of the coins considered to be PL (at least for world) are actually undocumented proofs or specimens. When there are only one or two spectacular examples with that type of finish, especially high grade ones, you have to wonder. Also, I generally prefer to own both an MS and an MSPL example of a type, if I can get them. This is especially true when the best PL I can find is 60-62 but I can find an MS example in the 64-66 range. I prefer to keep the MS coins in my type set and I put all my PL examples in a side set.
I'm convinced that PL automatically means the grade will be a point lower because any abrasions are so much more noticeable than on a frosty example. And that seems to be true even if the coin holder lacks the PL designation like this one. I have the 1908 Austria 100 Coronoa "Lady In Clouds" in MS60 without PL designation but clearly proof like. We're it not PL fairly certain it would have graded MS62.
I collect prooflike coins, so this is a no-brainer for me. Absolutely I would choose the PL, every single time. In my US Type Set, I have absolutely sold higher graded coins and replaced them with lower graded coins that were designated PL. I sold a 67 Wheat cent (1943S) and replaced it with a 66PL - to me, that's an upgrade. I did a similar thing with my Jefferson nickel - sold a higher graded PL, and replaced with a lower graded DPL.
IMO great luster is superior to somewhat marred PL surfaces in many cases. Really lovely cartwheel luster is hard to beat. Also PL strikes are mirrolike by nature and tend to “wash out” the devices.
Best of both worlds...,,.. Especially the reverse, which as slabbed is the side with the NGC serial number.
