Opinion of star designation vs PL for Morgans 0

[stooker]

Sorry for the noob question, and I know the star designation is subjective... but (a) assuming the star designation is not due to toning and (b) comparing Morgans of the same year/mint/grade, would like to know your thoughts/opinions on a non-PL Morgan with star designation vs. a "plain" PL Morgan.  Still learning to value overall eye appeal, but my objective side places a higher value on a PL strike characteristic vs. the star.  Would like to know what others think!

[Jason Abshier]

I’ve seen very few blast white coins get star note ... I believe they have to be blast blast blast white perfect eye appeal to get star note ... however I do see mostly on heavily rainbow toned coins get the star note for good eye appeal ... I don’t buy into the star grade thinking it worth more or anything ... for a blast white PL Morgan , it would have to be perfect and perfect to get a star note which would be hard I doubt there many of them around I haven’t seen any , I could care a less 

[Sean Reilly13]

4 hours ago, Jason Abshier said:

I’ve seen very few blast white coins get star note ... I believe they have to be blast blast blast white perfect eye appeal to get star note ... however I do see mostly on heavily rainbow toned coins get the star note for good eye appeal ... I don’t buy into the star grade thinking it worth more or anything ... for a blast white PL Morgan , it would have to be perfect and perfect to get a star note which would be hard I doubt there many of them around I haven’t seen any , I could care a less 

I Agree 100%!.......Perfect Explaination...

Sean

[stooker]

4 hours ago, Jason Abshier said:

I’ve seen very few blast white coins get star note ... I believe they have to be blast blast blast white perfect eye appeal to get star note ... however I do see mostly on heavily rainbow toned coins get the star note for good eye appeal ... I don’t buy into the star grade thinking it worth more or anything ... for a blast white PL Morgan , it would have to be perfect and perfect to get a star note which would be hard I doubt there many of them around I haven’t seen any , I could care a less 

Not exactly what I was asking.  Assuming all else is the same, would a PL Morgan generally have better eye appeal than a non-PL star Morgan (not toned)? 

I'm not even talking about PL with star, I've never seen one either, but NGC census suggest they exist.

If I'm comparing apples to oranges, then that's what I need to know, then.

Thanks for the reply regardless! 

Edited April 25, 2019 by stooker

[Mohawk]

1 hour ago, stooker said:

Not exactly what I was asking.  Assuming all else is the same, would a PL Morgan generally have better eye appeal than a non-PL star Morgan (not toned)? 

I'm not even talking about PL with star, I've never seen one either, but NGC census suggest they exist.

If I'm comparing apples to oranges, then that's what I need to know, then.

Thanks for the reply regardless! 

Well...I don't collect Morgans, or US coins at all for that matter of fact, but I think I can help you with this inquiry.  It's something of an apples and oranges comparison.  The Star can be awarded for a lot of things, which can include proof-like surfaces, but it can also be awarded for nice toning or anything that makes the grader feel that a particular coin has superior eye appeal over other coins of the same date, mint and/or series.  A PL designation is much more technical across the boards.  I'm not sure of the exact specifications, but I believe that a coin has to have a certain depth of reflective surfaces to be given a PL designation and I believe that it has to have cameo contrast to be DMPL.  That's the difference between the designations and it's pretty difficult to compare them to one another as they are quite different.  One is subjective and one is technical. However, to be totally honest, I'm probably the last guy on this planet to ask about the eye appeal of Morgan Dollars.....that's one coin I've never liked.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mohawk

[Jason Abshier]

9 hours ago, stooker said:

Not exactly what I was asking.  Assuming all else is the same, would a PL Morgan generally have better eye appeal than a non-PL star Morgan (not toned)? 

I'm not even talking about PL with star, I've never seen one either, but NGC census suggest they exist.

If I'm comparing apples to oranges, then that's what I need to know, then.

Thanks for the reply regardless! 

That all depends on individual who likes PL VS MS coins ... me personally I like PL Morgans I do believe some PL morgans are stunning and should get a (*) mark , compared to same MS Morgan of same year/mint mark ... 

[stooker]

11 hours ago, Mohawk said:

Well...I don't collect Morgans, or US coins at all for that matter of fact, but I think I can help you with this inquiry.  It's something of an apples and oranges comparison.  The Star can be awarded for a lot of things, which can include proof-like surfaces, but it can also be awarded for nice toning or anything that makes the grader feel that a particular coin has superior eye appeal over other coins of the same date, mint and/or series.  A PL designation is much more technical across the boards.  I'm not sure of the exact specifications, but I believe that a coin has to have a certain depth of reflective surfaces to be given a PL designation and I believe that it has to have cameo contrast to be DMPL.  That's the difference between the designations and it's pretty difficult to compare them to one another as they are quite different.  One is subjective and one is technical. However, to be totally honest, I'm probably the last guy on this planet to ask about the eye appeal of Morgan Dollars.....that's one coin I've never liked.

Thanks!  I'm cross shopping between a star Morgan and a PL Morgan (1878 8TF), but the challenge is that it's only through internet photos.  When I specifically wanted a toned Morgan, I relied on the star designation to validate what a seller was claiming because I just don't trust the photos.  I live in the boonies, so don't have coin shops to go to and see examples in person.  For this next Morgan I'm leaning towards a PL.

3 hours ago, Jason Abshier said:

That all depends on individual who likes PL VS MS coins ... me personally I like PL Morgans I do believe some PL morgans are stunning and should get a (*) mark , compared to same MS Morgan of same year/mint mark ... 

For this one I want proof features, so looking into a PL.  Just wanted to know how others approach it.  Thanks so much!

[Jason Abshier]

14 hours ago, stooker said:

Not exactly what I was asking.  Assuming all else is the same, would a PL Morgan generally have better eye appeal than a non-PL star Morgan (not toned)? 

I'm not even talking about PL with star, I've never seen one either, but NGC census suggest they exist.

If I'm comparing apples to oranges, then that's what I need to know, then.

Thanks for the reply regardless! 

That all depends on individual who likes PL VS MS coins ... me personally I like PL Morgans I do believe some PL morgans are stunning and should get a (*) mark , compared to same MS Morgan of same year/mint mark ... 

 

you are correct Proof Morgan dollar photos online look hideous! I agree 100% with that ...  It is hard to get a good photo of them most of them look like they been scratched up with steel wool or something , in person they look way better . I guess it way light reflect off coin when they are taking picture of a PL Morgan .... as far as (*) for toned Morgan I’ve seen Morgans that were way better rainbow toned than ones that had (*) I don’t depend on star note much at all ... I’ve bought many coins off internet that looked crappy with a photo but when I got it in hand that was a different story look way better, or I hope the coin was photo graded at grading company at least they take better picture than some guy selling coins on internet using his iPhone to take photos ....I usually only buy from seller who have a return privilege if I don’t like the coin I’ll ship it back , only time I ever shipped a coin back was 1 time I bought 1943-S mercury dime MS67 FB The slab was crack in corner, luckily the dealer had another one sent it right to me. 

[Mohawk]

Quote

Thanks!  I'm cross shopping between a star Morgan and a PL Morgan (1878 8TF), but the challenge is that it's only through internet photos.  When I specifically wanted a toned Morgan, I relied on the star designation to validate what a seller was claiming because I just don't trust the photos.  I live in the boonies, so don't have coin shops to go to and see examples in person.  For this next Morgan I'm leaning towards a PL.

It can be very tough to shop online using photos....this I do know.  One of the things I do collect are Roman coins of Empress Faustina the Younger.  While I do have two very good dealers near me (and a couple of not so good ones!) that have Roman coins, I've had to buy all of my Faustina coins online up to now.  So far, I've been fortunate but I do know that I could end up with a bad coin.....though mostly what I have to worry about are fakes rather than eye appeal.....most 1,900 year old coins are going to have some wear on them and possibly other issues.  I think the key here is making sure that you only buy from sellers who accept returns.  That way, if you get a coin which has a nasty surprise that you didn't see in the photos or one that's just plain ugly, you aren't stuck with it.  If you do that, you should do okay with buying online.  And it is good to be a bit skeptical with photos....some photographers can make a coin that is dreadfully ugly look gorgeous in their photos.

[coinman1794]

If the Star was awarded for reasons other than eye appeal, it was to note that the coin has a PL obverse, or that both sides just missed PL by a hair. Therefore, a full PL designation is objectively  better than the Star, (again, if it's a case where the star was not used for eye appeal).

[stooker]

2 hours ago, Mohawk said:

It can be very tough to shop online using photos....this I do know.  One of the things I do collect are Roman coins of Empress Faustina the Younger.  While I do have two very good dealers near me (and a couple of not so good ones!) that have Roman coins, I've had to buy all of my Faustina coins online up to now.  So far, I've been fortunate but I do know that I could end up with a bad coin.....though mostly what I have to worry about are fakes rather than eye appeal.....most 1,900 year old coins are going to have some wear on them and possibly other issues.  I think the key here is making sure that you only buy from sellers who accept returns.  That way, if you get a coin which has a nasty surprise that you didn't see in the photos or one that's just plain ugly, you aren't stuck with it.  If you do that, you should do okay with buying online.  And it is good to be a bit skeptical with photos....some photographers can make a coin that is dreadfully ugly look gorgeous in their photos.

I'll def keep that in mind.  Fortunately I've been satisfied with all the coins I've acquired online (haven't been in the hobby to long, but I'm at about 60 graded coins now).

2 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

If the Star was awarded for reasons other than eye appeal, it was to note that the coin has a PL obverse, or that both sides just missed PL by a hair. Therefore, a full PL designation is objectively  better than the Star, (again, if it's a case where the star was not used for eye appeal).

Got it!  That's what I was wondering, and figured the star would be given for some PL credit but short of a full PL.  

Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I'm going to press with trying to get a PL Morgan next!

Edited April 25, 2019 by stooker

[jgrinz]

On 4/25/2019 at 7:38 PM, stooker said:

I'll def keep that in mind.  Fortunately I've been satisfied with all the coins I've acquired online (haven't been in the hobby to long, but I'm at about 60 graded coins now).

Got it!  That's what I was wondering, and figured the star would be given for some PL credit but short of a full PL.  

Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I'm going to press with trying to get a PL Morgan next!

Except for exceptional toned coins the * as it concerns PL coins is most is what was said above. PL on one side and not the other OR PL with out all the devices in PL state.

I have seen a BEAUTIFUL PROOF LIKE COIN not get a PL because all the Lettering and Stars were not frosted along with the major frosted devices like the Liberty head and Eagle.

I have a few of those in my collection (non PL designations) - I consider them CHEAP proof like coins as the PL carries a much more monetary valve than not a PL

 

[Davids5104]

On 4/25/2019 at 4:23 PM, coinman1794 said:

If the Star was awarded for reasons other than eye appeal, it was to note that the coin has a PL obverse, or that both sides just missed PL by a hair. Therefore, a full PL designation is objectively  better than the Star, (again, if it's a case where the star was not used for eye appeal).

This is absolutely my perception, a star represents one-sided glory for a coin but falls below the PL designation.

Regarding the reflective surfaces, I believe it is 2 inches for PL and 4 inches for DMPL (deep mirror PL)