What exactly is "proof-like"?

This is incorrect. As already stated, proof refers to a type of manufacture, not a grade. I’m not sure when or how this misconception became so frustratingly prevalent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Coins are manufactured as "Proofs" from Mint. However, proof made coins are graded from 1-70 later. Depending on how they where handled after manufacture. Perfect ones are Pf-70. Ones from 1800s rarely are better then Pf-63+
John

 

Okay great. I guess it depends on the country. I've never seen a Hungarian PL strike with cameo, and would bet they don't exist.

 

Exactly! The term “proof” refers to the way the coin is manufactured. The term “grade” in the most general sense of the word refers to the degree of preservation, although there is a marked difference between technical and market grading.

For a visual reference, please refer to the images below. The William and Mary piece is the lowest graded proof coin in my collection, while the 1804 Bombay piece is the highest.

 

Nice explanation

 

Examples in gold. Sometimes they call it MSxxPL other times they call it PLxx, ---sometimes with and sometimes without cameo designation; sometimes they make no distinction at all and simply call it mint state. This is especially true on older holders where it's obvious the coin is proof-like though there is nothing on the holder to indicate as much.

Would be an interesting research project (for someone with the time) to document the evolution of PL designations. While I do not know this for certain, my suspicion is that the grading services originally began with only MS or PF (PR at PCGS) - and that the marketplace demanded some sort of distinction for PL beginning with Morgan dollars from the Carson City mint, and the PL designation was then adopted at a later date. I suspect the concept was then eventually applied more evenly to other issues besides Morgan dollars.

 

A couple more monster PLs without the designation on the holder. The 1912 Italy 50 Lire is pre-hoard and nicer than anything sold in MS63 in over 20+ years.

 

Beautifull coins, thanks for posting them.

 

Keep in mind those slabs that just say MS were all slabbed prior to PCGS and NGC assigning the PL designation to any world coins, and may get the designation on a review if requested.

 

The problem there arises with cost. If they are resubmitted raw, there's some chance there won't be any grade gain, and will actually become less valuable because they are in a new holder graded under looser standards. If they are submitted for reconsideration, there's a much better chance of it upgrading but with a hefty value-added charge assessed on the invoice. Is it worth, say, $500 to have PL added to the slab? IDK, kind of hard to rationalize it, though people do that all the time on some real high end coins to gain a point. There's all sorts of examples with US rarities from the 18th century where there is provenance trail with the coin climbing the grade scale each time it appears at auction. It's ridiculous, but it happens and every sophisticated bidder knows it before bidding. Never-the-less, the TPG service still collects a huge premium on the upgrade. That happens with world coins too, the October 2020 sale at MDC Monaco had a number of extremely rare and valuable coins (mid 6 figures) that had previously resided in lower graded holders. That's what is so nice about CAC on the US side of things, it essentially lends the same pop of an upgrade from the TPG service but at a tiny fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, they don't do foreign coins, and while there is WINGS (and I own a couple with their sticker) for foreign coins, their sticker does not carry anywhere near the panache that a CAC sticker does for comparably valued US coins.

There is no question PL coins are more desirable than the same coin with regular frosty surfaces. The PL implies (rightfully so) that the coin was struck with fresh dies, something always more desirable all else being equal. It does, however, at times result in bidders paying too much for the coin just for the PL designation. Here's a pair of DWI 50 Franc coins sold 7 months apart at Heritage in 2019. The 63PL at NYINC, the 64 at ANA. I don't think there is any question the MS64 is worth every penny of the $1.20 extra it fetched over the MS63PL.

 

Not reconsideration. Designation review service. It's cheap, and they don't regrade it. They only look at the designation as per your request, and it comes with a free reholder.

 

View attachment 1244570

The 1955 Egyptian chariot coin depicted above in MS62PL? This coin was originally in a PCGS MS63 holder, someone (not me) sent it to NGC and they dropped it a point to MS62 and added the PL designation. Tom Caldwell sold me the coin and included the original PCGS label. When the number is entered into PCGS verify, there is absolutely no question it is the same coin. I asked at the PCGS Members Only show here in Las Vegas about having PCGS put it back in its original MS63 holder which would then match the PCGS 1957 MS63 dated example also in the collection. PCGS wouldn't make any guarantees that would happen if I resubmitted the coin, --my thoughts are not printable here on this forum regarding that answer so I'll just leave it at that.

While TPG grades have come to play an important part in the hobby, my opinion is that the real value-add of having a coin in a slab is the authenticity guarantee. But somehow the market now considers the grade the more important aspect, even though it's a low skill task. Take two coins that are identical in every way except grade, show them to a random homeless person living on the streets, and 99% of the time they can correctly tell you which one is the nicer looking coin. If they can do that, you would think it would be a cinch for hobbyist to do it themselves without paying billions to the grading services, but call it lack of confidence or whatever, most hobbyist don't trust their own judgement anymore.

1955 coin without PL but clearly every bit as proof-like as the 1957 in the collection:

 

Not sure what point you're making here, it depends on how you submit it. Nobody is disputing that there are ways to send in a coin where the grade can go lower. It's just that designation review is not one of those ways. They only look at the designation.

 

Which specific designations? PL? DCAM? RD? RB? BN? FBL? FH? FB?

 

@Jaelus didn't NGC remove designation review and now only has a regrade option?

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/420625-designation-review/

 

Wow! Based on this it looks like they removed it mid 2020. That really stinks. I used designation review frequently. Didn't do any submissions once covid hit though so I didn't notice the change.

 

Yes you could use it to review any of those. It was for reviewing the designation on the slab, or reviewing the coin's eligibility for a designation that was not on the slab. Looks like they no longer do this service though, which stinks. I don't necessarily want a regrade just because the designation is wrong. Of note, this was the best way for renewing the guarantee on older slabbed copper that was RB or RD.

 

Well that's an interesting link, especially the one collectors interest in having Jefferson nickels re-slabbed with FS by NGC. I do not collect Jefferson nickels, but I am keenly aware of the market for them. There is no other coin (bar none) minted by the United States that is more profoundly affected by the general preference for PCGS holders over NGC than FS Jefferson nickels. In many instances, the PCGS coins in the same grade fetch many times what an NGC coin fetches. There's little mystery about why, a close inspection of NGC graded coins with the FS designation reveals all sorts of coins that would never get the designation at PCGS. In a lot of cases, Jeffersons in NGC holders are pretty much spending money. Sure glad the same phenomenon does not apply to World coins in NGC holders.

 

I'd bet @Lehigh96 would disagree with a few of your points. If anything, PCGS tends to be looser when it comes to the FS designation for Jeffersons.