I'm starting to look for a PL Morgan Dollar but sometimes I'm confused as to why one coin got a PL designation from a TPG while another one didn't. Here is one example of my confusion. PL: http://cgi.ebay.com/1880-S-Silver-M...em&pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item19be734e32 Non PL: http://cgi.ebay.com/1879-S-Morgan-S...em&pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2eaf0003ea It looks to me like it should be the other way around. Can someone point me in the direction for buying raw PL coins? Thanks.
I agree the second one looks much nicer than the first one. Better eye appeal and luster, not a lot of marks on Liberty's face. I'm just learning about the PL and DMPL designation on Morgans. From what I've read in Bower's book, Guide Book to Morgan Silver Dollars, the PL and DMPL Morgan exhibits strong luster with hardly any dullness. Not a lot of distracting blemishes or marks. In so far as the difference between those two Morgans from the links you posted, proves my point that TPG grading is opinion only. What may be PL to one, is not PL to another although clearly the TPG who did not designate their Morgan as PL, in my opinion should have for reason already mentioned.
The general criteria I have read is that MPL is the ability to read text at 3" in the reflection and a DMPL is same at 6". PL is just that the surfaces are similar to that expected in a proof coin. The second coin is not any of these as far as PCGS is concerned or it would be on the label. 1. Each TPG has their own standards and even how the terminology is used , if used. 2. Different criteria are considered generally used for certain years/mints as the output coins varied accordingly. 3. It is my opinion that the terms and the corresponding coins, have varied even within the first 2 points, during the years by the TPGs. More recent seems to be more forgiving. Best learning seems to be to look at as many as possible in hand at shows, etc., as many photos can be deceiving. Jim
Sometimes, PCGS can be really tough on PL / DMPL designations. Inconsistent, too. It's quite possible coin #2 would get a PL designation on a resubmission. HOWEVER... ...always remember it's hard to tell from a photo. That's a major factor on this thread, since none of us have seen these coins in hand.
I think PCGS was accurate in the grade given the 79-S. I don't like the way the field looks on the reverse beneath the motto, and if you look at the close-up of the mintmark, you can plainly see the flow lines which makes me think of die deterioration. As for the 80-S, I'm always leery when a seller takes photos at an angle. It is only a very slight angle, but what is he trying to hide? Chris
This is the key. There are established criteria for a coin to receive the PL or DMPL designation. The coin either meets those criteria or it does not - there is no ambiguity. And this is one of the few things that can be proven about a coin with a photgraph, but it very seldom is. Something to keep in mind about photopraphs of coins - the taker of the picture is not always trying to hide something. Rather they are often, perhaps even most often, trying to show something instead. For a straight on picture will not show the luster or the color, or even the refectivity of a coin. These things can only be shown by the use of angles. Sometimes that angle is very slight and sometimes it is greater. But if you can see luster or color then there is an angle, that much is certain.
I know you're probably right, but on eBay, it seems that my suspicion is the norm. The only reason I've questioned it here is because he doesn't show both views, straight-on and angled. Chris
In my experience I find two things...... 1. Getting a picture of a PL coin can be very difficult especially if you do not angle the coin...dmpl's do not suffer from the same problem. I recently sold a toned 1885-O that was a no brainer PL coin on both obverse and reverse but was not designated by PCGS. I can understand if it was an early "S" mint morgan becuase those generally come semi-PL so it has to be a knockout coin bordering on DMPL to get the PL designation. 2. Not only have the standards changed several times over the past 25 years, the standard seem to be different at each TPG much like the use of FBL, FT, FH etc. So collectors are at a real disadvantage when trying to gauge PL and DMPL on their own regardless of how knowledgable they are... Chris (cpm9ball) is a perfect example....he has been buying and collecting PL and DMPL Morgans extensively for years...he knows the standards...and yet many times he has been surprised with grades he receives back. Could Chris be inconsistant...yes. Could the TPG's be inconsistant....yes. I believe it's probably a combination of both but when someone looks at a coin for hours at all angles and says it makes the cut for a designation and the graders at a tpg look at the coin for say 10 seconds...I tend to believe that there is a higher level of errors on the 10 second side..don't you?
