| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,848 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
2360 Posts |
I saw this dollar on sale and it was detailed as scratched. I think it is still pretty nice. I see a finger print on the reverse. What do you think?   Edited by SilverDon
12/17/2018 2:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36770 Posts |
Hard to tell from these photos. Any chance of better lighting on the surfaces?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Pretty hard to judge behind that plastic. If it was described as scratched, then I'd be sure to have return privileges.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
2360 Posts |
Just try to guess using my original images,
I am fine with the scratches. I prefer not
busting it out. It is only an estimate.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21611 Posts |
Hi SilverDon-
Looks like another purchase from CA.
Mine is PL65 and that looks similar so I will say PL65 details.
Still nice to have no matter what the grade..
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1620 Posts |
I thought the '49 dollars were either specimen or business strikes?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
Looks like an MS-63..PL is not a real finish for this issue..this is just a shiny mint state like many are..they only struck MS and SP coins for the 1949 dollars.
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Quote:
PL is not a real finish for this issue..this is just a shiny mint state like many are..they only struck MS and SP coins for the 1949 dollars. Are you sure? PCGS has certified 334 x 1949 PL's. Would the same be true for 50, 51 and 52? Both NGC and PCGS have them, I can't comment on ICCS as I don't have a population report. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21611 Posts |
ICCS does not recognise PL finishes until 1951
but CCCS, Coins and Canada and Colonial Acres
all recognise PL's starting in 1949.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
@purelywasted PCGS has a different definition of PL and if you look at their PL certified 49 dollars they have no consistent finish. I have seen 49 dollars certified by them in PL slabs that are everything from lustrous to mirrored to actual specimens. The 1950 to 1952 PL dollars are a different discussion as they actually produced legit PL strikes those years..as far as ICCS..they used to call 1949 dollars PL but no longer recognize them. And CCCS simply doesn't know ehat they are doing..i would not even consider them a TPG. Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
The US grading companies make plenty of mistakes when attributing PL for Canadian coins (and specimens for that matter too).
I do believe ICCS says there are no PL 1949 dollars, even though I have seen two PL 1949 ICCS certs, both of which are the very old type, so maybe they were graded by ICCS before they decided there are no PL's. (go figure?)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Yup, I have a 1949 ICCS pl 64, in old embossed holder.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
It is an interesting topic
I have 3 x 1949 dollars, PL 64 (ICCS), MS 64 (ICCS), MS 65 (PCGS)
- The clearest distinguishing marks I can find is the PL has rims that are clearly more squared, even and nicer in overall appearance. The denticles are better defined and formed on the PL. The letters might be flatter and less rounded on PL, but hard to tell through all of the plastic.The rest of the devices and legends appear similar in level of detail.
- I would wonder, what caused ICCS to change opinions on the existance of PL and how nice are the 300+ PCGS PL's?
- Is there any official documentation to prove/move the conversation one way or another
I have a 1951 PL 66 SWL (PCGS), MS 64 SWL (ICCS), MS 63 (ICCS)
- In examining the three, I am starting to wonder if the PL is actually MS, but it is hard to tell with they PCGS case, as this rims are partially obstructed with the holder. The letter appear to be a bit rounded on the REV, but flat on the OBV. The PL is very well struck and great surfaces, but that is why it is a 66. I really wonder on this one.
- In Haxby Canadian Coins and Tokens (1st ED), he attributes the term "Prooflike" to Charelton in 1954, so did it take the collector community a few years to catch onto PL or was this new in 1953? Looking at one of the dealers posts (I have forgotten to which), they describe opening up a 1953 cardboard set and getting a mix of SP and PL coins.
- Who is right? ICCS and some very experienced collectors say no 1949 PL, PCGS/NGC and other collectors seem to indicate there were. I hope this discussion continues as it is quite interesting, and I feel like I am starting to learn the difference between the PL's, SP's and MS's, though sometimes it is really hard to tell.
Edited by purelywasted
12/20/2018 03:04 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
Quote:
Yup, I have a 1949 ICCS pl 64, in old embossed holder. That makes three PLs graded, so far. I have one (pl65) and I saw another one being offered for sale at a coin show last year(pl65). |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5589 Posts |
I always thought that PL was just what Charlton called UNC's for those years. ICCS does what Charlton puts out (common people and money involved back then) so it had nothing to do with how they were designed or struck. Then PCGS picked up on the same terminology, so all these question marks remain in the air. I don't collect bright and shinys so I'm certainly not any type of expert ... just what I've read from people who DO KNOW what's what on the coin sites for the last 20 years.
Edited by okiecoiner
12/20/2018 10:20 am
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,848 |
|
Posted 12/17/2018 1:57 pm
