| Author |
 Replies: 73 / Views: 5,418 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
Sorry to hear, but at least they gave it another shot, all TPG's use 3 graders minimum and a finalizer. At ANACS I believe JP Martin is the finalizer, I'd trust JP's grade over most anyones. He has seen more coins in a month than most of will see in a lifetime, seriously. He knows luster, and if he says it's lacking then it is. 1880-S is a really common date for amazing pieces, I'm betting he has seen some that will knock you over in comparrison. I've seen a lot of DMPL that lack luster before. Not all that uncommon. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2541 Posts |
Wow, this thread has been an education. I would have put down some serious money for that coin. I will make sure I'm careful before I buy a coin like that...
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
Thanks Kman, What a great coin you have!! From the experts who have weighed in on this, the subjectivity of coin grading and wide variations even in the same grade level is definitely troublesome, for me anyway. So my collecting is evolving already ... and only 3 weeks into it! I'll probably still buy some cherry picked MS63 slabs but there is a gravitational field around a date set of raw "really nice to my eye" UC coins AND maybe even another date set of circulated Morgans that show some "experience" and patina. They've earned their place among the pretty boys, eh!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1211 Posts |
If it makes you feel any better, I submitted an 80-S to ANACS and it came back MS63. The only reason I submitted it was because everyone I showed it to said it looked like a 65. Later I talked to someone who told me 80-S is one of the strictest years for ANACS due to many high quality strikes. In the end I am very grateful for the experience as it taught me a lot about the "slabbing game". Changed the way I view/grade coins...
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Stop. Full stop. The surface conditions under which a coin will show the characteristic called "Deep Mirror Prooflike" are the exact opposite of the surface conditions under which a coin shows "luster." A DMPL coin's fields are not yet sufficiently worn for the striations which create luster to be visible. DMPL coins do not have luster. This is what James Halperin has to say about it, in How to Grade US Coins: Quote:
Deep mirror prooflike (D.M.P.L. or D.P.L., depending on the grading service you use) coins have fields that are nearly devoid of any cartwheel lustre. These people are hallucinating. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
What do you think this Morgan would grade if it were submitted by one their "big" (spender) customers? The same or possibly higher?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
933 Posts |
Good point Dave, I think the big spender would definitely, check these points out as well:
1. If you had a friend and they worked as a grader do you think you would get better grades
2. I'm sure most working as graders own coins as well and so if they had the only MS67, do you think they would grade your coin an MS67, each coin added takes away from the overall value. I'm not saying by do that it's just things I have thought about
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
Quote:
What do you think this Morgan would grade if it were submitted by one their "big" (spender) customers? The same or possibly higher? Exactly what my old high school buddy thought, and saw while grading at PCGS. He went on to create ICG "Independent" Coin Grading, as every submission went to a 3rd party bonded party that removed the coins from packing and logged them - assigned each an ID number then sent them on to the graders. There by eliminating any "ownership" issues. Now on a particularly rare or unique coin that information may be common knowledge, but not on most coins. A very good idea at them time. He also divested his portfolio of coins, and no graders were allowed to sell coins while grading for his company. He has since sold ICG and I don't know if they still follow those guidelines. I do know PCGS and NGC graders all buy and trade coins on the side. Do you think there might be a conflict of interest in grading then? I sure do. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
933 Posts |
There are ways around everything and anything, so anything and everything is possible.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
Quote:
DMPL coins do not have luster. To quote Halperin's How to Grade U.S Coins again: Quote:
Mint lustre, which is a combination of cartwheel, sheen, brilliance and contrast, is defined simply as the way in which the surface of a coin reflects light. This is the definition of luster that I think of. I think what Halperin meant was a DMPL is nearly devoid of a specific way the light reflects: the cartwheel that we see on the majority of coins that are in a high enough grade to have original mint luster. I don't think he meant DMPL's have no luster since right after the part I quoted, he mentions briefly about the luster on matte proof St. Gaudens. Also, notice he uses the words "nearly devoid" instead of just "devoid". On all the DMPL morgans that I have seen so far, including the one in my collection, a faint cartwheel is visible which is indicative of the presence flow lines though they are more microscopic in nature than on coins struck from dies sufficiently worn to create the familiar cartwheel. As I write this, I have a 2009 silver proof set by my side. All the coins have a very faint cartwheel that varies in strength from barely detectable to visible but faint. DMPL is a shorthand way of describing the luster just like PL, frosty, satin, etc. A DMPL has prooflike luster but not much cartwheel luster. Edited by D0ubl3Eagle
02/28/2013 9:51 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
933 Posts |
well here she is pic files were huge so not as good quality and greyer, the pics should the fields very dark black   |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I would scoop up every coin like that one slabbed as such in a heartbeat!! You know, That coin is wayyyy better than that slab. I've never seen a MS61 DMPL that clean..If there was really something wrong with it, why isn't it a details coin? I'm ticked  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
933 Posts |
here's the close up shots someone requested, I am in utter shock and awwwww. Yes there are a couple hairline scratches, but it isn't from a cleaning like PCGS graded. iam starting to believe mylar holders are to blame, that is how this coin came. should they really be grading beyond 5x what the eye can see anyways except for purposes of figuring out authenticity. well here are the close ups   |
| |
Replies: 73 / Views: 5,418 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 02/26/2013 9:22 pm
