NGC MSDPL

Discussion in 'World Coins' started by Jaelus, Oct 18, 2018.

  1. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I was looking through NGC's world census for 19th century Austrian ducats, and I noticed one MSDPL coin in the census.

    I didn't realize NGC used the DPL designation for world coins. Anyone have an MSDPL world coin? What does it take to get this? I've had trouble getting them to give PL for world coins as it is, with some coins having to go back for designation review. I do have a couple that anyone would consider DPL though and they got PL.
     
    mlov43 likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    This is what it says on the NGC website -
    https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/grading-scale/

    DPL Deep Prooflike.
    Applies only to circulation issues. The fields are deeply mirrored and the devices are heavily frosted on both sides.


    PL Prooflike.
    Applies only to circulation issues. The fields are mirrored and the devices may be frosted on both sides.


    However, that is somewhat contradicted on another page of their website -
    https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6633/learn-grading-deep-prooflike/
    - where they say this.

    NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness.

    The underlining is mine, made to point out the contradiction regarding frosted devices.

    If you search and read their forum you could find where they state that both US and world coins are given the special designations when they are worthy of receiving them. However, in other places they also state that if and when a coin is intentionally made to have the PL DPL qualities that those coins are not eligible for the designations.
     
    Seattlite86 likes this.
  4. muhfff

    muhfff Well-Known Member

    I have DPL coin. It's not from 19th century, it's modern one, but its DPL.
    Estonian 20 senti 2003, it's made for circulation and I got it from coin roll.
    https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3935815-099/66/
    I didn't do anything to get it, I just got it. And it's not the only one with DPL designation.
     
    Seattlite86 and Jaelus like this.
  5. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Ah, I hadn't found it on their site but this makes sense. I've had a few coins with PL surfaces that I suspected didn't get the designation due to heavy toning that made them fail a reflectivity test (like the one below which graded MS63) - the only ones I've had get the designation have been dipped. Seems like an arbitrary penalty against an original look.

    corona.jpg

    I'm frustrated with NGC on world PL designations. I've had coins come back newly slabbed without PL that I've then immediately resubmitted for PL designation review and had come back with the designation. This leads me to believe they are overlooking world submissions for the PL designation. That trust us we give the designation when the coin is worthy line is nonsense. They are clearly not doing it consistently.

    Should I have to pay to resubmit all my PL coins under PL designation review to have them get the proper designation? Seems like a conflict of interest on their part since omitting the designation the first time through gives them an additional source of revenue.

    The last submission I had with PL coins, I called customer service and had them hold the order after grading, then I asked them to recheck the coins I thought were PL for the designation and 2 out of 3 of them ended up getting it at that time. I shouldn't have to do this.

    I wasn't aware though that world coins qualified for DPL. So I guess now I need to send a few of my PLs in for DPL designation review so they can make even more money? I have 5 coins with the PL designation that I would describe as having deep cameo (as below, which crossed to NGC as an MS64PL).

    20 kreuzer.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
    Seattlite86, mlov43 and baseball21 like this.
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Strictly my opinion of course, but once you consider the test/qualifications for the designation I wouldn't say it is arbitrary at all. And the test, or qualifications if one prefers that term, apply to all business strike coins regardless of country of origin. With the exception that I made note of in my post above.

    I'm reasonably sure that you personally know what I'm talking about when I refer to the test for PL and DPL/DMPL (DPL and DMPL are both the same thing), but for those who don't, for a coin to qualify for either designation reflectivity has to be physically measurable at given distances.

    As to what those distances are in today's world I'm not really sure anymore as it depends on what you read and where you read it. In other words they vary a good bit. But years ago it was and always had been the same for both NGC and PCGS. PL required reflected readability at 4 to 6 inches, with or without frost, and DMPL required reflected readability at 8 to 12 inches with full frost on both sides. And this requirement applied to the entire coin, not just parts of it here and there. But in recent years I have read in various places where those requirements are 2-4 and 6-8. But as I said I don't know for sure which one they actually follow anymore.

    But regardless of what measurement is used, that reflectivity has to be present on the entire coin, or at least the vast majority of it, and uninterrupted. And toning, well toning interrupts the reflectivity, it simply makes it go away, as do patches of hairlines or light scratches and even concentrated patches of light contact marks.

    So if a coin is toned like the one you posted above, it does not qualify for the designation - because of the toning. In the toned areas the reflectivity simply isn't there.

    Can't say that I disagree with you on that count. But as I see there are two possible and even probable explanations for the inconsistency. One would be the direct contradiction regarding frost that I pointed out above. One says it is required, one says it isn't. One group of graders may be referring to one qualification and another group of graders may be using the other. The second possible explanation that I am referring to may be the distance requirement. One group may be using a longer distance and the other a shorter distance.

    As I said these are only possibilities but I do think that one or the other of them is probable. Especially given what you relate, that they are often changing their minds.

    Regarding this coin specifically, my estimation would be it does not qualify for DPL because of the concentrated areas of light scratches, hairlines, and light contact marks, particularly on the obverse. They simply interrupt the refectivity too much. And the frost, at least in aggregate, appears to be broken too much on the bust. I can only assume that NGC was of the same opinion. But it is also possible that the issue of distance is playing a part as well.

    In support of my opinion on this I offer this as an example. I purchased this coin somewhere around 2003 so it was slabbed (NGC) at least that long ago. And granted the pictures are of poor quality but I think they show enough to be used as an example.

    1868 Austrian ducat obv.JPG 1868 Austrian ducat rev.JPG


    This was slabbed 63PL. And as you can see it has even fewer marks in the fields than your coin but roughly the same breaks in the frost in aggregate as yours. But even where the fields are clean the coin came no where near meeting the distance requirements for DPML, but they handily met those for PL.

    Now I don't know but if you were to resubmit these coins of yours for review perhaps they would change their minds as they did with the PL coins. If they did then I would again suspect that one of the two reasons I gave above would be the explanation.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  7. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    A proof is a proof based on the method of manufacture. A toned proof is still a proof, regardless of the impact on reflectivity.

    A proof-like coin is proof-like based on the method of manufacture also. It is otherwise a business strike that is produced as one of the initial strikes (typically 100-150 coins) from a pair of newly-polished dies that impart a complete mirror-like finish on both surfaces. Likewise, a toned proof-like coin is still a proof-like coin. The fields are still mirrored. Anyone looking at the coin can see with their own eyes that the fields are fully mirrored.

    I say the reflectivity distance test is arbitrary because I view the test failing toned mirrored coins not as an indicator that the coins are not proof-like, but as an indicator that the test itself is flawed as it fails to detect a legitimate proof-like coin. The very idea that you can have a proof-like coin, let it sit out and acquire some light toning, and then say it is no longer a proof-like coin, is the very height of absurdity.

    I zeroed in on a different part of your initial post than you did here: "However, in other places they also state that if and when a coin is intentionally made to have the PL DPL qualities that those coins are not eligible for the designations." The graders are familiar with US coins, but they cannot possibly be familiar enough with all world coins that when confronted with a given coin they can say whether or not a PL look is typical for that type/date, and it is not practical for them to test every world coin for reflectivity.

    You suppose that PL world coins that get slabbed without the designation are being tested and failing and then later are being measured against a different metric. I think the simplest and most probable explanation is that they just aren't in the habit of checking world coins for PL. When I explicitly call them and ask them to check before the coins get shipped, lo and behold, a high percentage of the coins get the designation. Previously when I didn't call and ask them to check, none of the coins were getting the designation. It would be too much of a coincidence for the reason to be from different people reviewing the coins for PL at those exact times.

    Thanks for the example. Also, very nice ducat.
     
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I understand your thinking Jaelus regarding the issue of toning but I can't say that I agree with it. Here's why. There's 2 reasons actually, one is this is one of those special designations that existed long before the TPGs came along. And from the very beginning the deciding factor/s were the reflectivity meeting the required distance/s and the frost requirements. And if the coin did not meet those requirements, for any reason, then it was deemed unworthy of the designation.

    The second reason would be that even though a coin may have been manufactured in such a way that it was at the time it was minted worthy of the special designation, but as time passed something, anything, happened to the coin so that it no longer met the requirements for the designation, then rather obviously it would no longer be worthy of the designation.

    In other words things changed because the coin changed. And it doesn't matter if the change was the coin getting hairlines, contact marks, and or light scratches; or if it was the coin acquiring toning, anything that altered the coin so that it no longer passed the test then the coin could no longer be worthy of the designation.

    But lemme ask you one last thing. Do you agree or disagree - that if a coin has too many contact marks, hairlines, light scratches, or any combination of them so that it does not pass the reflectivity test and or meet the frost requirements - that the coin cannot be considered PL or DPL ?

    Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that you will agree that the coin cannot be considered PL or DPL if that is the case. But if you do agree with that then how can toning be considered to be any different ? Both things change the coin, alter the coin, so that it does not pass the test. So it stands to reason that if one disqualifies the coin then other should disqualify it as well because they both do the same thing - they stop the coin from passing the test.

    Back in the very beginning when the special designation was first created that was the reasoning applied. If for any reason a coin failed the reflectivity test then it was not worthy. Personally, I believe that is valid reasoning. I mean I disagree with the TPGs about a lot of things, especially their grading, but I also do agree with a lot of what they do, and why, and this is one of them.
     
  9. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I don't agree. A coin is either proof-like or not at the time it is struck. Contact marks, etc. will lower the grade, but it won't fundamentally transform the coin into something else. I have an NGC MS61 PL in my collection. By your statements above, do you think it's impossible for an MS61 to be PL?

    I have many friends and acquaintances that are dealers or are otherwise advanced numismatists, and due to my interest in PL coins I've had many of them inspect my PL coins and have inspected many of theirs. While there is some subjectivity on the lower end (semi-PL coins), generally speaking people agree on a coin being PL or DPL based on visual inspection. Not one of them has ever pulled out a ruler to measure the reflection distance before weighing in on whether a coin was PL or not. The reflectivity test is not only completely unnecessary, but also erroneous.

    Last year I bought a 20 krajczar in an NGC PF62 slab. They slabbed it as a proof because they thought it was the 1960s restrike, but I noticed it was a prooflike that didn't have the restrike mark. I sent it in for them to correct the mistake, but although they changed it from being a restrike proof to the business strike, they changed the grade from PF62 to MS62. They refused to even give it PL. How does it make sense that the coin was proof-like enough that they literally mistook it for a proof, but not proof-like enough to get the PL designation? This is completely counterintuitive, but it was because the impairment of the surfaces made it fail the reflectivity test, despite being so obviously proof-like that it got slabbed as a proof. When the bar for getting a proof-like designation is higher than the bar for being deemed an actual proof, something is very wrong. If that doesn't perfectly illustrate what's wrong with using the reflectivity test, nothing will.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  10. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Interesting discussion between you both. Sorry, I don't have time to comment but I'll add this short post to the thread.

    1. This is one STUPID thing done by at least one top TPGS. Think of a 1971-S DCAM Proof Ike dollar. "It is not considered to be a DMPL because the beautiful, rich, dark, toning 'masks' the Cameo contrast. :facepalm: STUPID! STUPID!

    2. Think of a coin with ultra mirror surfaces. Now hack it up and scratch it. While the grade drops, the price drops, the eye-appeal drops, its surfaces were and still are ultra mirror. :p
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    No not at all, but it does depend on the situation, the specific coin in question in other words. A coin can be graded a 61 for a few different reasons, not just contact marks. And the location of the contact marks can also play a part, not only in determining the grade but in determining if the coin meets the PL requirements as well.

    Rather obviously we're not going to agree regarding the reflectivity test, but to me it's really simple. That test is, was, and always has been the primary factor when it comes to determining if a coin is PL or not. The very purpose of the test was to remove the question of subjectivity from the equation - to make the determining factor something actually physically measurable. So to say that the test is flawed just because this coin or that coin does not pass the test due to its condition - to me that just doesn't make sense.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  12. mlov43

    mlov43 주화 수집가

    Another very interesting conversation.
    Thanks for starting this one, Jaelus.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  13. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    Removing the question of subjectivity while introducing false negatives is of dubious value. Other countries don't impose such a test. They identify proof-like coins by sight, as they are plain to see. Yes it's subjective, but so is grading.

    Why aren't you advocating for a measurable test to gauge the level of wear to eliminate subjectivity? Of course it would identify coins that have a weak strike as worn, especially if the coin is both weakly struck and worn. But to then say the wear measurement test is flawed because weakly struck coins don't pass due to their condition wouldn't make sense, right? We don't live in a world of absolutes. There are exceptions that fail the reflectivity test but are nonetheless proof-like, such as coins with toning, coins with hairlines or other surface conditions, and coins that are blast white but don't have flat surfaces.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  14. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I'm afraid we shall have to simply agree to disagree.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  15. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    GDJMSP, posted: "I'm afraid we shall have to simply agree to disagree.

    I'd rather discuss this topic further as I see a contradiction in your post below:

    GDJMSP posted: "No not at all, but it does depend on the situation, the specific coin in question in other words. A coin can be graded a 61 for a few different reasons, not just contact marks. AGREE And the location of the contact marks can also play a (big) part, not only in determining the grade AGREE but in determining if the coin meets the PL requirements as well. This is where we differ. IMO the number of marks on a coin, the number of scratches or hairlines - all PMD has nothing to do with the original reflectivity of the original mirror. Sure, we can PMD a coin enough to change its reflectivity - in fact, we can even fuff a coun's surface enough to remove it completely but those are the rare exceptions which only fog-up a very simple to understand the concept: A PL is a PL!! Just as you state below: "The reflectivity test has been..."

    Rather obviously we're not going to agree regarding the reflectivity test, but to me, it's really simple. That test is, was, and always has been the primary factor when it comes to determining if a coin is PL or not. And that is the contradiction. Except in rare cases where a surface is destroyed - the depth of the mirrors is the key factor. The very purpose of the test was to remove the question of subjectivity from the equation - to make the determining factor something actually physically measurable. So to say that the test is flawed just because this coin or that coin does not pass the test due to its condition - to me that just doesn't make sense."
     
    Owle and Jaelus like this.
  16. Owle

    Owle Junior Member

    There are a lot of coins, like classic gold coins that PCGS for whatever reason will not call PL but NGC, Anacs and ICG will much to their credit.
     
  17. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    My thinking on it is simple - just because a coin used to be PL, and even when you can plainly see that, that doesn't necessarily mean it still is.

    To me it's kinda like this. When a coin was first struck it very well may have been an honest to god MS67 - something that is pretty unusual, special even in most cases. (Just like a coin being PL is special in most cases.)

    But over time due to mishandling, rough treatment, even excessive toning, that MS67 coin, that special coin, could easily be turned into, and often is turned into, an MS63 coin - nothing special at all.

    So why should it be any different with PL ?

    Everybody is entitled to their own opinions of course but that's how I see it, how I look at it.

    If toning, contact marks, hairlines, whatever, change the surface of a coin enough so that the majority of the surface of that coin no longer passes the reflectivity test - then that coin can no longer be considered to be PL.

    However, if a coin is toned so that it does not pass the reflectivity test, and then that coin is dipped, and after the dipping it DOES pass the past. Then I would readily agree with the PL or even DPL/DMPL designation.

    But with hairlines, contact marks, whatever - that can never happen because those things cannot be undone. Toning however can be undone, in some cases. In others, the toning, even if dipped away, may well have still changed the surface enough that the coin no longer passes the reflectivity test. And if it did, then the coin still isn't PL.
     
  18. Owle

    Owle Junior Member

    I had an NGC DPL downgrade to PL, and they gave me credit; not sure if anyone here has gotten any money back from the services.
     
  19. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    The disagreement here is fundamentally cultural. You view PL as something the coin has, rather than something the coin is.

    In the US, these coins are looked at as business strikes with a special look. The look is something the coin has. Since it's something the coin has it can also be lost, meaning a PL coin can become not a PL coin later. The term proof-like itself defines this type of coin based on the appearance, and appearances can change.

    In German and Hungarian, however, the terms used for these coins translate as "first strike", and "polished dies" respectively. Meaning, the coin is one of the first strikes from polished dies. Nothing you do to a coin can change what it is. These terms define this type of coin based on the method of manufacture, which cannot change later. I would assume this view is shared throughout broader Europe as well, though I don't know the terms or views of other European markets (perhaps someone else can chime in on this).

    It's different because PL is a distinct type of strike, not an appearance.

    What you're saying sounds no different to me than claiming an MS67 that becomes scuffed up and worn should no longer be considered a business strike because it doesn't look like a freshly-struck business strike anymore. As you know, a proof that is worn down to PR1 is still a proof, despite having lost all the characteristics of a proof. So it is the same way with an MS1PL/PL1. Of course, you might not be able to definitively prove it with either coin at that level of wear, but it still holds true.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
    Insider likes this.
  20. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I don't see it as being cultural at all. But I do agree with the second sentence.

    Strongly disagree. it is not a special strike or distinct type of strike at all, it is merely a matter of chance. There are many, many, first or early strikes that are not PL at all. In fact I would say the vast majority of early strikes are not PL. And this is proven by the small numbers of PL coins we see. Fresh dies are used all the time, in any given mintage of any substantial quantity, many sets of fresh dies are used. But we rarely see PL coins.

    Yes, the dies being fairly fresh, meaning they have not much wear yet, plays a part, but so does the planchet. If the planchet is of poor quality then the coin will never be PL, no matter how good the dies are. And even an average quality planchet will not result in a PL coin. Only the best quality planchets produce PL coins. And that is where the element of chance comes in because no effort is ever consciously made with business strikes to strike a PL coin. And the planchets enter the coining chamber completely at random. When a PL coin is struck, it was an accident, not an intention. And it is being an accident that makes them special to begin with. And that's why the test was created to begin with. It's very purpose was to identify these special coins in an actual measurable way that removed all subjectivity.

    It is only with collector coins, coins that are struck with no intention at all of ever being used in actual circulation that such efforts exist. And it is for this reason that the TPGs have and follow that distinction they do that coins like this are automatically disqualified for the PL/DPL designation.
     
  21. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I completely agree with what you're saying here and never claimed otherwise. All proof-like coins are first strikes, but it does not go to say all first strikes are proof-like coins.

    Error coins are also produced without intention, by chance, making them special. They don't transform into not errors when they are scuffed up, and they are singled out into a major area of numismatics based on the unintentional method of their manufacture. Yet somehow proof-likes are just an appearance-based designation?

    I get what you're saying, that PL is a special surface condition, but you previously equated it to being like a hyper gem that loses its special state with wear and handling. That's not a proper analogy because wear and handling lowers the grade with PL coins, but it doesn't automatically prevent them from being PL, even with the reflectivity test being used.

    The other problem with that argument is that light attractive toning would enhance a hyper gem coin. Yet somehow that same toning on a PL coin which does not diminish the mirror-like surfaces, can prevent it from getting the designation?

    With say a FH SLQ that is worn, once the wear makes the coin lose the designation, it cannot be restored. The designation is lost because the coin has fundamentally changed. With a lightly toned PL coin, one can still see the high reflectivity in the surfaces and that they are not harmed by light toning. One can even dip the coin to remove the toning to prove that the mirrored surfaces are there on the coin, unchanged. Can you think of another case in numismatics where a correctly applied designation on a coin can be lost due to toning and then correctly restored again after a dip?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page