How do you know if its S-PL, PL or DMPL?

[thatothercoinguy-migration]

I recently bought two not rated Morgan dollars on ebay. Both were advertised as being DMPL, I was able to buy them cheap because the pictures were not too convincing. That being said, I didn't expect to get anything too spectacular out of my purchases.

 

Both coins appear to have little to no toning. The first one I bought was a 1881 S and has some cameo frost on the obverse and strong cameo frost on the reverse. The second coin is a 1921 P, with very little frost on it. Both coins have full details on the hair and eagles chest, no rim damage, and cartwheel luster so I'm 90% certain they haven't been cleaned.

 

Anyways, I'm trying to determine what kind of luster these coins have. I think I can rule out DMPL since the feilds are not perfectly mirror like. But they do have some reflection so I am convinced they are at the very least S-PL. How do I go about determining if the coins are PL or just S-PL? What officially qualifies as PL and DMPL anyways?

 

 

 

 

[SWNGC]

Here's a pretty good little summary/tool

 

http://www.coingrading.com/plcoins1.html

[physics-fan3.14]

Yeah, that was the page I was looking for to show him.

 

The difference between the designations is in large part the degree of reflectivity, measured by the depth of the mirrors (and tested by how far away images can be clearly distinguished). The distance required is different for each of the TPGs, but generally PL is about 2-4 inches, and DMPL is about 6-8 inches. Another important aspect is cameo contrast - the fields must be mirrored, but the devices should be frosted like modern proofs.

[coinman1794]

Yeah, that was the page I was looking for to show him.

 

The difference between the designations is in large part the degree of reflectivity, measured by the depth of the mirrors (and tested by how far away images can be clearly distinguished). The distance required is different for each of the TPGs, but generally PL is about 2-4 inches, and DMPL is about 6-8 inches. Another important aspect is cameo contrast - the fields must be mirrored, but the devices should be frosted like modern proofs.

 

I would argue, rather, that the devices can or might have Cameo, but that it is not required. Many Morgan dollars do show cameo effects on the devices when they are PL and especially DPL, though not all; and most would not qualify for a Cameo designation. PL and DPL coins of other series are almost never Cameo, and many dont even have a trace. Let's not forget, actual Proof coins don't always have Cameo either.

 

[thatothercoinguy-migration]

Thanks for the info and the link, I'll try testing out the reflectivity of my coins later today. I got a silver copy proof as a gift awhile back that I will test against my Morgans too, as it should qualify as DMPL.

 

 

[thatothercoinguy-migration]

I would argue, rather, that the devices can or might have Cameo, but that it is not required. Many Morgan dollars do show cameo effects on the devices when they are PL and especially DPL, though not all; and most would not qualify for a Cameo designation. PL and DPL coins of other series are almost never Cameo, and many dont even have a trace. Let's not forget, actual Proof coins don't always have Cameo either.

 

According to the link what coinman1794 said looks to be correct. Coins get PL or DPL designation according to their reflectivity and a cameo designation if there is a high degree of contrast.

[thatothercoinguy-migration]

Alrighty, did the test, almost exactly how it said to do it.

 

The 1881 S looked like it was S-PL on the obverse, although it was tough for me to guage it because of the frost. The reverse was a bit easier for me to gauge, I could read PROOFLIKE but no more than that. It may have a shot at being PL, but it will probably be a a stretch.

 

The 1921 P did better, I was able to read Proof Like pretty easily and I could make out "DEEPLY" of Deeply PL, although it was a bit of a strain. Compared to the silver copy proof it was harder to read DEEPLY. So my best guess is that it will be rated PL, I would be suprised and very happy if it got DPL.

 

 

[prudden]

It's a pretty murky area distinguishing SPL from PL and PL from DPL when judging Morgans. Everyone seems to have their own idea what each should look like. The ANA came out with a standard a long time ago but no one seems to follow it. NGC, PCGS,ANACS and ICG each have their own grading standards so it can vary by which grader gets your coins. For instance,I have a 1886 that was graded as Ultra DMPL by ACG. Now I know what you'll say.But, this coin has very nicely frosted devices and better mirrors than an 80S DPL that was in the same group I submitted.It came back 63 PL..Frustrating.

[jesbroken]

Prudden,

As I understand it(not having done so myself), for $10 you can submit it to CAC and see if they agree with its grade or not. I have read that if they think it will grade higher they will notate it somehow(maybe a color of sticker). If the coin is MS65 it would be well worth the upgrade fees. I may be wrong but this is as I understand it.

Jim