First Page
Previous Page
Posted 04/29/2011 01:33 am
Prooflike and DMPL Morgans are not uncommon. If one uses Heritage Auctions results as a guideline - something you'll see me do very often, as their sheer volume tends to provide broader-picture conclusions - you can get a feel for the relative rarity of PL/DMPL Morgans. Not exact percentages - PL/DMPL Morgans are quite liquid in the marketplace, so I would expect them to appear for sale more frequently. So, use the numbers I'm about to post for comparison, not as a true percentage of mintage with the feature.
1881-S, for instance, is a date I'd expect to see represented pretty well in terms of PL/DMPL. Heritage bears this out, as fully 16.2% of 1881-S examples they've sold carried the PL or DMPL label. Two other years I can think of off the top of my head as rather rare in PL/DMPL are 1879-O and 1889-O, each return a figure of about 7.2% by the same measure. 1889-S is even rarer, at 5.7%.
Viewed as a whole, almost exactly 10% of Morgans offered at Heritage are PL/DMPL.
Now, let's talk about 1921. 1921 Morgans are known for their weak strikes and indifferent luster; a lustrous 1921 is to be coveted. In terms of PL/DMPL, well....by the same cipherin' as above, 7.9% of 1921-P's were offered in PL/DMPL. 1921-D: 5.3% 1921-S? Um, 13 coins out of 1,234 offered. That's right. One Percent. Including a single DMPL, an MS64 coin which sold for over $15,000 at a time when an MS64 1921-S was a $130 coin.
So, when we start throwing about the term "Prooflike" when discussing 1921's, understand that we're in rarefied air. I've owned two PL 1921's, and never seen a DMPL 1921 in-hand.
Here's what I see in the coin presented by acloco: The photographs show extremely dark fields in areas not directly lit. This is, at worst, a sign of a highly lustrous coin. Although one can't make any reasonable conclusion regarding PL potential from these shots, the evidence is certainly favorable on both faces. DMPL is, to my mind, out of the question. A true DMPL Morgan would likely be blinding in the lighting used for these photographs; the shooter would discard the results and try something else.
Given the luster, and the lighting which is bright enough to throw dark shadows in the fields while washing out some details, I'm expecting noticeable marks to be pretty well highlighted. This is the case on the cheek - note the two rather bright lines, one in the center of the cheek and the smaller second toward bottom right. To their left are some less-bright marks. You can see nicks on the nose, and some in the darker field from 8:00-10:00. There's stuff that catches my eye near right stars 3-4-5. On the reverse, miscellaneous nicks, one fairly obvious mark near the "R" of "DOLLAR" and the adjacent star and another between the other star and "U" in "UNITED."
Given the harsh lighting, chances are all of these marks are somewhat exaggerated.
Now, the (potential) bad news. Dipping isn't in play; if this coin was dipped, it was done right and no evidence of it exists. Polishing, however, is in play. See the "graininess" of the brightly-lit areas near 11:00 and 5:00 on both faces? This look tends to be erased by polishing, so the jury remains out.
The images are not clearly focused. Marks may be hidden or underrepresented. It could be a slider AU, which could help explain the lack of marks on the devices. It could be PL on one face and not the other, which would prevent the "official" designation since both faces must qualify.
I'm optimistic. Worst case, this is an MS64 coin with top-of-the-charts eye appeal, and would sell for greater than the $100-ish value its' grade indicates. Best case, the marks I see are exaggerated and it's 66PL, a coin which would sell immediately at $5,000.
For my money? MS65, not PL but probably worthy of the NGC Star designation. Upper-end for the grade, a $150 coin.
1881-S, for instance, is a date I'd expect to see represented pretty well in terms of PL/DMPL. Heritage bears this out, as fully 16.2% of 1881-S examples they've sold carried the PL or DMPL label. Two other years I can think of off the top of my head as rather rare in PL/DMPL are 1879-O and 1889-O, each return a figure of about 7.2% by the same measure. 1889-S is even rarer, at 5.7%.
Viewed as a whole, almost exactly 10% of Morgans offered at Heritage are PL/DMPL.
Now, let's talk about 1921. 1921 Morgans are known for their weak strikes and indifferent luster; a lustrous 1921 is to be coveted. In terms of PL/DMPL, well....by the same cipherin' as above, 7.9% of 1921-P's were offered in PL/DMPL. 1921-D: 5.3% 1921-S? Um, 13 coins out of 1,234 offered. That's right. One Percent. Including a single DMPL, an MS64 coin which sold for over $15,000 at a time when an MS64 1921-S was a $130 coin.
So, when we start throwing about the term "Prooflike" when discussing 1921's, understand that we're in rarefied air. I've owned two PL 1921's, and never seen a DMPL 1921 in-hand.
Here's what I see in the coin presented by acloco: The photographs show extremely dark fields in areas not directly lit. This is, at worst, a sign of a highly lustrous coin. Although one can't make any reasonable conclusion regarding PL potential from these shots, the evidence is certainly favorable on both faces. DMPL is, to my mind, out of the question. A true DMPL Morgan would likely be blinding in the lighting used for these photographs; the shooter would discard the results and try something else.
Given the luster, and the lighting which is bright enough to throw dark shadows in the fields while washing out some details, I'm expecting noticeable marks to be pretty well highlighted. This is the case on the cheek - note the two rather bright lines, one in the center of the cheek and the smaller second toward bottom right. To their left are some less-bright marks. You can see nicks on the nose, and some in the darker field from 8:00-10:00. There's stuff that catches my eye near right stars 3-4-5. On the reverse, miscellaneous nicks, one fairly obvious mark near the "R" of "DOLLAR" and the adjacent star and another between the other star and "U" in "UNITED."
Given the harsh lighting, chances are all of these marks are somewhat exaggerated.
Now, the (potential) bad news. Dipping isn't in play; if this coin was dipped, it was done right and no evidence of it exists. Polishing, however, is in play. See the "graininess" of the brightly-lit areas near 11:00 and 5:00 on both faces? This look tends to be erased by polishing, so the jury remains out.
The images are not clearly focused. Marks may be hidden or underrepresented. It could be a slider AU, which could help explain the lack of marks on the devices. It could be PL on one face and not the other, which would prevent the "official" designation since both faces must qualify.
I'm optimistic. Worst case, this is an MS64 coin with top-of-the-charts eye appeal, and would sell for greater than the $100-ish value its' grade indicates. Best case, the marks I see are exaggerated and it's 66PL, a coin which would sell immediately at $5,000.
For my money? MS65, not PL but probably worthy of the NGC Star designation. Upper-end for the grade, a $150 coin.
... Forget the PL, is this a PROOF? That looks like some of the non-cameo proofs that most 
...
