NGC robbed me of my DMPL Morgan

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by toned_morgan, Dec 3, 2022.

  1. toned_morgan

    toned_morgan Toning Lover

    So I got the results of my five-coin submission to NGC... not what I wanted. Of the five Morgan's, two came out as what I expected, and the other three were disappointing.

    The first is a toner, I'm not too mad but I just expected higher than a 63.

    The next two are what really broke my heart. The first is an 1882, I didn't expect a high grade so I accept the 62 that NGC gave it, but I was certain on a PL designation. Here's a video of it, and it turned out to just get a plain MS62. What do you think, I would have said definite PL, the fields reflected well over 6 inches clearly which is the PCGS guideline for PL designation.

    The second 1882 is 1000% a DMPL, and NGC robbed me of it. It is so mirrored that I actually could not measure far enough to find the point where the mirrors were out of focus. I could read my entire computer keyboard, an entire foot long ruler, I could see the details of my hair when I held the coin. Safe to say it is extremely mirrored. So much so that no photo can get the slightest trace of visible luster in the fields. NGC's photos are resemblant of a true DMPL, my photos are the same, and in hand it is ridiculously reflective. Grade-wise, I agreed with a 63 as it's quite a nice clean coin, but I believe that it deserves a DMPL designation. What do you think?

    My photos (I kept the lighting position and camera settings exactly the same as I did for a normal Morgan with luster, and I could not get an ounce of luster out of the coin)
    Untitled design-10.png Untitled design-11.png DSC_1801.JPG

    Here's NGC photos, even they couldn't get any luster at all. It almost looks like a proof from their photos (I'm exaggerating obviously, but you see what I mean)
    Screen Shot 2022-12-03 at 21.46.39.png Screen Shot 2022-12-03 at 21.46.46.png

    I might just be in deep denial, but I find this unfair as I don't know how a DMPL could be any more reflective than this coin.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    PL and DMPL designations are not objective for Morgan dollars. The bar for reflectivity is set differently for each date. For dates where PL coins are common, you really have to have DMPL even to get PL. For other dates where PLs are very uncommon, even a semi-PL will get the designation. I strongly disagree with this approach, but it is how they do it.
    Kasia, Insider and GoldFinger1969 like this.
  4. toned_morgan

    toned_morgan Toning Lover

    Isn't 1882 an uncommon PL date? I know that most of the S mint marks are hard to get DMPL for the reason you explained
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  5. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    We need to hear from some of the Morgan-experts like MorganDude.
  6. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    Yes it is. While its true that on certain dates it really has to be a knock out to get PL/DMPL, all you have to do is look at the pop reports to see that they arent relaxing standards to pump up the number on dates that have very few. They would be common if the standards were so low for them
    GoldFinger1969 and Insider like this.
  7. mpcusa

    mpcusa "Official C.T. TROLL SWEEPER"

    If you think it deserves a better grade by all means submit to PCGS, it looks like
    a good candidate , they do look batter to me as well, :)
    Mainebill likes this.
  8. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Pancakes on the mind?

    Not exactly sure, NGC may have not liked the hazy looking fields. Might be a candidate for a quick dip and re submit.
    Kasia, mpcusa and toned_morgan like this.
  9. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    The NGC photos do not show a DMPL coin.
  10. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Aside from the stupid difference due to VALUE (coin dealers :(make the rules and keep grading complicated for their own benefit) causing two coins with identical reflectivity to be graded differently (also happens with non-PL coins) there is another thing to consider. The obverse is the important side. Its mirror better be "all there" for the coin to DMPL. Additionally, both sides need to be up-to-the-:confused:-moving-standard of reflectivity for that date. A less reflective mirror on the reverse will either "kill" the PL/DMPL designation or some TPGS will note that the coin has just a PL/DMPL obverse because I've been told that a coin with a PL or DMPL obverse has a little more value than a non-PL and a lot less value than a fully PL coin.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  11. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    While the obverse is normally the most important side, both sides need to be "all there" for it to get the PL or DPL.

    See, I absolutely hate this idea. Different dates have different "standards" for PL? That's almost as ridiculous as saying that we're going to grade key-dates differently.

    A standard should be a standard, dangit. If it's VF on a 42D Merc, it should be VF on a 16D! If it's PL on an 1886 Morgan, it should be PL on a 1921!

    ANACS did this on the old white holders, and I liked it. They would label "PL Obverse" or some such, as you mention. NGC does the same sort of idea with their Star - they'll give a star if the obverse is PL but the reverse doesn't make it. The star is kinda weird though, because it could mean many different things. PCGS does not do anything of the sort.
  12. mpcusa

    mpcusa "Official C.T. TROLL SWEEPER"

    Pancakes this morning ! LOL
    Pickin and Grinin likes this.
  13. Vertigo

    Vertigo Did someone say bust?

    Do you know that truly pl and dmpl morgans should, under magnification show striations in the fields. In the early days of grading, early rattlers age so on, some coins got the designation that weren't true pl or dmpl. Once the die was polished the first coins minted after that looked pl but don't display these striations. There are a lot of early holder coins that won't qualify for a bean at CAC because of this. Now I have a newsletter somewhere and have posted it on this forum before from my LCS talking about this. I'm going to go find it because I know someone is going to come along and call me a liar. But that is the truth. And your coin may look even in hand proof like. But if the coin doesn't look right under magnification it won't pass.
  14. Vertigo

    Vertigo Did someone say bust?

    This guy is Warren Mills. He is from Rare Coins New Hampshire. This is from the spring 2021 newsletter.
    Screenshot_20221204-170405_Gmail.jpg Screenshot_20221204-170420_Gmail.jpg
    toned_morgan, Mainebill and longshot like this.
  15. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    PL/DMPL has gotten much tighter since the early days. A lot of people are suspicious of the early holders with those designations if they dont have a CAC
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  16. toned_morgan

    toned_morgan Toning Lover

    @Vertigo yes these coins don't have die polish. Here's another coin in my submission (came back MS64), the reverse looks a bit mirrored because it had the die polish, so I didn't expect it to be PL. The coins mentioned earlier are absolutely smooth, with no die polish present. You can see from the first post with the light reflecting off the coin that the surface is super smooth and watery.

    Untitled design-3.png
  17. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    I don't believe this post is correct. In fact, the post above by Warren Mills gives a different opinion. So, who is correct? ;)

    How do SEGS and ICG handle one sided PL/DMPL? How do you feel it should be done. Should the designation PL or DMPL Reverse be used?

    PS If a coin has a mirror that rates the PL/DMPL designation, I don't care how it got there. The only exception is the coins that are altered by polishing after they were struck.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
  18. charley

    charley Well-Known Member

    90% of the story is the Obverse.

    Concerning the photos/images, it is impossible to grade an MS coin based on same. A person may think they can, the person may have whataboutism examples, but if the best in the business can't do it and state they can't, that ought to be worth consideration.
  19. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    What do you think of this one? The obverse has better cameo than I've seen on DPLs. The reverse is not as strong a PL, but definitely better than some I've gotten with the PL designation.
    hVl389e9S9G4OOl4URtQ_20190918_094035_resized (1).jpg
    W0roe2gkQJ29GLQOBhb6_20190918_094042_resized (1).jpg
  20. charley

    charley Well-Known Member

    I do not grade based on photos. I will give an opinion or thought on non-mint state and always comment that I do no have the piece in hand, but. Again though, 90% of the story is the Obverse. Always has been, always will be.

    What major or minor variety/anomaly if any do you observe, with the coin in hand?
  21. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Warren is, unfortunately, quite wrong. Die polished coins absolutely can be and are PL - the only important thing is the depth of mirror. I have spent the last 10 years studying and buying PL coins, and can show numerous examples across multiple series and countries of die polished coins receiving the PL designation.

    Warren is, however, correct on another issue - the standards or applications of PL to coins has varied throughout time. Certain eras are known for very lax PL use, and should only be bought with caution.

    I'll be honest, I have no idea what SEGS does, and I don't really care. They are not reliable enough for me to worry about.

    As for ICG, I'm sure that you could tell us much better. I really don't see a lot of PL material in ICG slabs. As far as I know, they treat PL similarly to PCGS - they label it, but don't do anything special for close-misses or one-sided PL.
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page