Need some opinions on these Morgans

I found these coins in some Morgan Dollars at my local shop.

Do you think that any of them will make DMPL if graded?

Why? Or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It would be a disservice to you to falsely raise/dash hopes by answering with any certainty; the only way to make an accurate determination is in-hand. I will opine that the first coin has a large strike against it with the obverse murkiness. To the extent that the TPG employs subjectivity in their evaluation of mirrors, this will strongly interfere.

If it were myself - and I employ a strictly technical standard for PL/DMPL - I would like the chances of the third one best based only on these images. For this opinion, I'm assuming all three were lit under similar conditions, and drawing the conclusion based on its' almost complete lack of what I'd call "luster" cartwheeling on either face, which is what I expect from a truly mirrored surface. "Frosty" isn't a prerequisite for PL/DMPL.

 

they were lit in the exact same box under the exact same angles (as close as I could manage).

I also tried as best I could to not enhance the look of these coins by the angle used.

Indeed the first coin is a bit murky, but all of them reflect type from 6 inches, and yes, coin #3 is I think the biggest no-brainer of them all.

 

I like your chances, then, as long as that can be said from all areas of field on both faces.

Of the three, only the '82's in DMPL offer any substantial economic gain, but - in my biased opinion - any mirrored Morgan is worth owning.

 

All three are nice, but the TPGs are pretty picky when it comes to DMPL designations.

Top one - no, way too much field haze on the obverse, the reverse is a little better but probably still no.

Middle one - too many breaks in the frost over the obverse high points and limited frost over stars and other devices. Again, the reverse is a little better, but still showing frost breaks over the eagle.

Last one - maybe, depending on what the surface goo across the left obverse field and portrait is. The reverse has a few areas that also could be frost breaks, but it might be photo artifact too.

 

@mikenoodle

Offhand, I would say "No!" to all three specimens, but I must qualify that statement by saying that it is very difficult to judge a DMPL from most photos. If you want to get a better idea of how DMPL's can look in photos, you might want to check out some of Todd's @blu62vette images on these forums.

Chris

 

Too hard to tell from the images, but if you say they reflect from 6 inches, I'd be willing to bet they'd all get at least PL.

 

I've had coins with 12 inch mirrors not get DMPL at NGC and PCGS. Not sure what they're looking for sometimes.

 

Partly why I referred to "subjectivity" on the part of TPG's, and partly maybe a debate over whether you should disqualify a specimen if the fields lose a bit even between certain stars or in nooks which sometimes don't even show Mint luster (like between neck and wing on Morgans).

 

And that's why I think DMPL coins should be valued higher than they already are.

 

Probably not, but that's just the odds of buying a raw coin labeled DMPL that is a legitimate DMPL. I'd have to see the coins in hand to be able to determine the depth and quality of the mirrors. There is contrast on the coins, which is why I didn't say definitely not.

 

I labeled them. I work in the coin shop that bought them.

The fields have really deep mirror surfaces, but I am not as knowledgeable on Morgans as some other series. I just wanted opinions from other people, so I posted them here.

 

Then I'll say the odds are better than what I first indicated, simply because you're forthcoming about the label's provenance and came looking for confirmation. I do go back to depth and quality of mirrors being hard to gauge from the photos. These days, you really need the mirrors on both sides to knock your socks off to get a DMPL.

 

None of them are DMPLs from those photographs. They would be lucky to get a PL designation, based on my experiences. The 81s looks close to PL, and might get the designation using today's standards. The other two-- no way. Many ordinary white Morgans exhibit considerable reflectivity. TPGs look for huge depth, and cameo before awarding PL and DMPL designations. Any white, clean decent uncirculated Morgan should have considerable cartwheel reflectivity and luster.

 

Thanks to all of you for your help. I welcome anything else that anyone has to add, and if we decide to have the coin graded, I'll let you know as well.

I must ask your forgiveness of my poor photography skills. The photos are poorly lit and were taken ( whether for better or worse ) to highlight the frosted devices rather than the mirror fields because every time I got good shots of the fields, you'd see my hands or camera, or the lights would make a giant hot spot.

The fields on the last coin in particular are deep and I think I would describe them as "monster" in hand. The first coin is a bit cloudy, but mirrored and frosted. The 1881-S is middle of the two.

All three coins reflected from 6 inches, but as I said, DMPL Morgans are not my area of expertise.

MorganDude and SuperDave, your opinions were ones I hoped that I'd see, but I don't want to lessen anyone's contribution, thank you all who helped out.

I will take some more pictures next Saturday, and try to catch the fields better.

 

No DMPL on all

 

It's not your photography skills; it's that reflectivity is nearly impossible to image.

As I just mentioned in another thread, in order to make it unequivocal you'd need an image with a wide-enough field of view to show both coin and what is was reflecting as well as enough resolution to accurately represent the reflection. Maybe from a sensor like this.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2980945/canon-goes-big-on-resolution-with-250-megapixel-sensor.html

You could just image the coin alone, showing what was being reflected and asking the audience to take your word on the distance from the reflected subject, but then you'd run into serious depth of field problems since you wouldn't be able to shoot the coin straight on.

 

Can you clear this up as well? Several in this thread have mentioned frost breaks across the stars and the devices as reasons why the coins will not grade DMPL. The other day in another thread someone told (corrected) me that the devices don't have anything to do with the designation.

How can I reconcile the two or are the other poster and posters in this thread just plain wrong?

 

I'm unsure why a frost break would affect a designation which is solely descriptive of the condition of the coin's fields.

 

I suspect the photos through those holders aren't helping with the hazyness, but that said, I have seen that designation on worse looking coins.