Another wacked 1996-D PL

[morganguru]

I knew I had another mint set with a PL Washie.

This one is a bit cleaner. The pics aren't the best, it's the best I could do.

This WQ is booming, gleaming, and blinding with reflective properties.

Thoughts........

 

[brg5658]

Same as the last, it's PL. The surfaces look liquid! I'd put this one at MS67PL.

[morganguru]

Same as the last, it's PL. The surfaces look liquid! I'd put this one at MS67PL.

 

Less hits on this one, much cleaner, IMO.

[L1ncolnF4n]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

[brg5658]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

 

PL designation from NGC has nothing to do with cameo contrast on modern clad coins. It seems the PL and DPL designations for Morgan dollars require such, but certainly not the other coins designated PL by NGC.

 

A good example is the 2000 Millenium Sacagawea -- the planchets were burnished to all get-out, but none exhibit cameo contrast, and almost ALL get the PL or DPL designation.

[mkman123]

i like it

[coinman1794]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

 

PL designation from NGC has nothing to do with cameo contrast on modern clad coins. It seems the PL and DPL designations for Morgan dollars require such, but certainly not the other coins designated PL by NGC.

 

A good example is the 2000 Millenium Sacagawea -- the planchets were burnished to all get-out, but none exhibit cameo contrast, and almost ALL get the PL or DPL designation.

 

Cameo contrast is not a requirement of any prooflike designation, though elements of Cameo are often present, even on clad moderns.

 

The 2000 Sac dollars were also designated as Burnished, and because they were an intentionally produced, special finish, they are not comperable to prooflikes that occure accidently.

[brg5658]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

 

PL designation from NGC has nothing to do with cameo contrast on modern clad coins. It seems the PL and DPL designations for Morgan dollars require such, but certainly not the other coins designated PL by NGC.

 

A good example is the 2000 Millenium Sacagawea -- the planchets were burnished to all get-out, but none exhibit cameo contrast, and almost ALL get the PL or DPL designation.

 

Cameo contrast is not a requirement of any prooflike designation, though elements of Cameo are often present, even on clad moderns.

 

The 2000 Sac dollars were also designated as Burnished, and because they were an intentionally produced, special finish, they are not comperable to prooflikes that occure accidently.

 

My point was that the PL and DPL designations are used on the 2000 Sac dollars...and they are not cameo -- but glassy on both the devices and fields. It doesn't matter if they were produced specially or not, the designation is the same.

 

I have never seen a modern clad PL coin that looks even close to having full cameo or ultra cameo qualities. The ever slightest hints of cameo, yes, but the devices are not sandblasted or etched in any way and so would never stand out with true cameo frosty contrast.

 

If I understand correctly, many of the planchets for mint sets were burnished during this time frame, so how is that "accidental"? These PL coins are not coming from unc rolls -- all likely come from mint sets. So, unless you want to start calling US coins from mint sets a different type of production (alla 2005-2010 satin finish), then they are not accidental. Canadian coins have gone exactly this route, with so many different finishes and production methods it's hard to even keep the PL, MS, and PF designations straight.

[coinman1794]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

 

PL designation from NGC has nothing to do with cameo contrast on modern clad coins. It seems the PL and DPL designations for Morgan dollars require such, but certainly not the other coins designated PL by NGC.

 

A good example is the 2000 Millenium Sacagawea -- the planchets were burnished to all get-out, but none exhibit cameo contrast, and almost ALL get the PL or DPL designation.

 

Cameo contrast is not a requirement of any prooflike designation, though elements of Cameo are often present, even on clad moderns.

 

The 2000 Sac dollars were also designated as Burnished, and because they were an intentionally produced, special finish, they are not comperable to prooflikes that occure accidently.

 

My point was that the PL and DPL designations are used on the 2000 Sac dollars...and they are not cameo -- but glassy on both the devices and fields. It doesn't matter if they were produced specially or not, the designation is the same.

 

I have never seen a modern clad PL coin that looks even close to having full cameo or ultra cameo qualities. The ever slightest hints of cameo, yes, but the devices are not sandblasted or etched in any way and so would never stand out with true cameo frosty contrast.

 

If I understand correctly, many of the planchets for mint sets were burnished during this time frame, so how is that "accidental"? These PL coins are not coming from unc rolls -- all likely come from mint sets. So, unless you want to start calling US coins from mint sets a different type of production (alla 2005-2010 satin finish), then they are not accidental. Canadian coins have gone exactly this route, with so many different finishes and production methods it's hard to even keep the PL, MS, and PF designations straight.

 

I understood your point and agreed with you.

 

What I am also saying, however, is that the 2000 Burnished coins are a bad example because they are specially prepared and they are not made through the same process as the coins that happen by accident.

 

Most PL coins are simply the result of the coin being struck from freshly polished dies. A burnished planchet struck by a frosty die does not come out PL, in most cases. Many 1971 IKE dollars were struck on burnished planchets, creating an extra glow, but not a PL effect. The wildly reflective finish of the Millennium sets was created by using polished dies and burnished planchets, resulting in PL to DPL surfaces. They are in the category of Special Mint Sets because of this special preparation. And because they are intentionally prepared, they have no chance of getting any traces frosting on the devices, as some of the more incidental pieces do.

 

[cladking]

I don't think the last one was as good as this. I've found that the majority of PL coins have a bit of cameo contrast, which this obverse seems to be lacking, but I think the reverse is good enough.

 

PL designation from NGC has nothing to do with cameo contrast on modern clad coins. It seems the PL and DPL designations for Morgan dollars require such, but certainly not the other coins designated PL by NGC.

 

A good example is the 2000 Millenium Sacagawea -- the planchets were burnished to all get-out, but none exhibit cameo contrast, and almost ALL get the PL or DPL designation.

 

Cameo contrast is not a requirement of any prooflike designation, though elements of Cameo are often present, even on clad moderns.

 

The 2000 Sac dollars were also designated as Burnished, and because they were an intentionally produced, special finish, they are not comperable to prooflikes that occure accidently.

 

My point was that the PL and DPL designations are used on the 2000 Sac dollars...and they are not cameo -- but glassy on both the devices and fields. It doesn't matter if they were produced specially or not, the designation is the same.

 

I have never seen a modern clad PL coin that looks even close to having full cameo or ultra cameo qualities. The ever slightest hints of cameo, yes, but the devices are not sandblasted or etched in any way and so would never stand out with true cameo frosty contrast.

 

If I understand correctly, many of the planchets for mint sets were burnished during this time frame, so how is that "accidental"? These PL coins are not coming from unc rolls -- all likely come from mint sets. So, unless you want to start calling US coins from mint sets a different type of production (alla 2005-2010 satin finish), then they are not accidental. Canadian coins have gone exactly this route, with so many different finishes and production methods it's hard to even keep the PL, MS, and PF designations straight.

 

I understood your point and agreed with you.

 

What I am also saying, however, is that the 2000 Burnished coins are a bad example because they are specially prepared and they are not made through the same process as the coins that happen by accident.

 

Most PL coins are simply the result of the coin being struck from freshly polished dies. A burnished planchet struck by a frosty die does not come out PL, in most cases. Many 1971 IKE dollars were struck on burnished planchets, creating an extra glow, but not a PL effect. The wildly reflective finish of the Millennium sets was created by using polished dies and burnished planchets, resulting in PL to DPL surfaces. They are in the category of Special Mint Sets because of this special preparation. And because they are intentionally prepared, they have no chance of getting any traces frosting on the devices, as some of the more incidental pieces do.

 

There are several factors that contribute to "PL" on modern clad. Die characteristics really is the number one cause up until 1985 when burnished planchets started becoming much more common. This usually meant basining and/ or polishing of the die but this could be almost invisible unless the coin was solidly struck early in the dies' life. Of course polished planchets often create a PL coin but a burnished planchet strike often has a better strike and from an earlier die state. More pressure is used on these coins as well since the vast majority appear in mint sets. There are some 1969 quarters out there struck from polished (proof) reverse dies that are quite ugly because they are just run of the mill otherwise.

 

I've seen only the vaguest traces of frostiness on any business strike PL made since 1968. PL '68 quarters sometimes are vaguely frosted (even a few non PL's), and maybe a few cents but I can't think of too much beyond these. There are a few interesting PL's with a lot of retained planchet marking that look a little "frosty".

 

Most proof collectors won't be impressed by PL's because they simply aren't the same quality as the proofs (except for a few cents), but sometimes all the factors can come together in a single coin to make something pretty spectacular. The hardest part is trying to find the highly PL coins that aren't scratched up.