What defines "Proof-Like"?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

self edited, not worth it.

 

Doug, I know you're correct, as I've seen the "proposed" standards, which I possibly believe to be as other standards. They may be just a figment to induce belief, rather than reality, as it appears for published grading standards, often seemingly far deviating from applied standards.

The discrepancies between published industry and individual seemingly subjective varying TPG firms standards have now been well established for grading. It's believed that objective parameters definition. need to be measurably defined, reducing/eliminating statements currently loosely applied in auctions, and by use of adhesive tags pasted to TPG slabs..

JMHO

 

Too me the coin is nice but not PL or DMPL. But it is tough to tell in pictures.

 

Comparing against some real proofs, the negative space isn't reflective enough. Oh well, still a 63 or so. If only it wasn't for the gouges on the face...

 

Comparing a PL coin to a proof is an excercise in futility. The two are produced in very different ways, and the mirrors will appear very differently. Instead, compare your coin to PCGS and NGC graded PL coins of the same date (you can easily look at the archive pictures on Heritage, for example). Based on your pictures (which aren't great, but don't feel bad - taking good pictures of PL coins is exceedingly difficult), your coin does not appear to be PL.

In reference to some of the other posts in this thread, both sides of a coin absolutely must meet the standard to be called PL. One side usually will be stronger than the other, but even the weak side must have sufficient reflectivity to earn the PL designation. Otherwise, the coin will likely be given a Star at NGC (there are many such coins - a strong PL obverse and a normal reverse, for example).