| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,801 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
Edited by jimbucks
12/08/2014 12:11 am
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
Very nice example.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Proofs and proof-likes image best using axial lighting.
Unfortunately that's a real PITA to do.
|
|
Valued Member
167 Posts |
That holder comes from a generation when they were more lenient on the PL/DMPL designation. They didn't really tighten up on the designations until about 5-6 years ago. I doubt it would qualify if cracked out and sent in today.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Wow. Spectacular coin, and as tough as it gets to find in PL. 1903 may be the toughest date in PL/DMPL of all Morgans. It's actually kind of tough to come up with a confident value on it - $500? $600? Somewhere in there, more with a Bean.
It's been my experience that PCGS has always been kind of brutal on PL/DMPL. For all the mistakes I've seen in their slabs, I've rarely seen a PL/DMPL I disagreed with. And with a coin of this stature - PCGS has only 25 in higher grade, probably many fewer when this one was graded - you know they're going to be careful.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
Quote:
That holder comes from a generation when they were more lenient on the PL/DMPL designation. They didn't really tighten up on the designations until about 5-6 years ago. I doubt it would qualify if cracked out and sent in today.
In my opinion, that generation of holder is toxic for any US graded coin. It doesn't mean all coins in that holder are overgraded as I'm sure your Morgan is a nice one, but I tend to stay away from that generation of holder. Edited by doubleeagle59
12/09/2014 12:09 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Yeah, we've all seen some woofers in those slabs.  My experience is admittedly anecdotal, but it seems to me there were a few years when you could only trust PCGS for the PL/DMPL designation. NGC especially was slabbing some headscratchers; ANACS was consistent but to a lower standard than PCGS. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4692 Posts |
Here are some new photos taken under natural light. These are most representative of what it looks like in hand.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7375 Posts |
Very nice  Quote:
In my opinion, that generation of holder is toxic for any US graded coin. What gives that generation of holder away, the label? |
|
Valued Member
167 Posts |
Quote:
What gives that generation of holder away, the label? Yes, the series and coin number on the front. I only have one in my collection and I bought it CAC'ed, it's one of the few, maybe a couple dozen, coins I have seen from this generation that is CAC'ed. I have never liked the coins in those holders and most I've seen appear overgraded, or at best, weak for the grade. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
I bought this coin raw and submitted to PCGS many years ago. Never been to CAC.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Then PCGS merely confirmed your judgment. There isn't much doubt about what I see in these new images. Keeper. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1748 Posts |
The fun part of 1903-O is it is probably the greatest conditional rarity of the Morgan series. Try to find nice one in G or VG and you will see what I mean.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2815 Posts |
You have a MS64 1903-O Morgan dollar. 'Nuff said. When did you submit it? |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,801 |
|
Posted 12/08/2014 08:01 am
