| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,197 |
|
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
PL and DMPL can be almost impossible to accurately give information on from pictures. In general though the standards on those are tighter now than ever before so the odds are greatly against one being missed before. That said it did happen, whether or not yours is one will be impossible to say for sure from pictures. If you had another submission going in and wanted to include it that wouldn't be the worst idea if you really believe in it
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
hi I have such great high resolution pics but unfortunately this forum is not user friendly when it comes to uploading high resolution pics
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
From the tabs around the coin we know it's a relatively recently submitted NGC coin. NGC is tough on both PL and very tough on DMPL, but the likelihood of it upgrading on another submission is quite small.
Photos are terrible for determining either PL or DMPL. Your obverse does look close to PL, but the reverse isn't clear enough to be certain.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Much larger pics of the reverse needed.  to the CCF! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
to the CCF! The key distinction between a regular MS Morgan and PL (or DMPL) is not just the reflectivity of the fields but the cameo contrast between the fields and the devices (bust and eagle.) In your case, I don't think there is enough cameo contrast (from what I can see) on the obverse, and definitely not on the reverse, to warrant resubmission. My avatar coin is a 78CC 63 DMPL, it shows the "black and white" contrast quality of a true PL/DMPL coin. That being said, your 78CC is beautiful and hopefully your son grows up to appreciate it as much as you do! Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I think MS63 is the correct grade.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3628 Posts |
First, From the heart, my family is deeply grateful for your service. I agree with the upthread comments. The grade looks spot on, and it looks just short of a PL coin. I think it is well within what old-timers (like me) once called semi-prooflike (SPL) Morgans. It has good eye appeal for the grade. I'm not a big fan of CAC, and I'll yield to others on this question. Would it be worthwhile submitting it to CAC, rather than taking another shot at NGC? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4468 Posts |
A very nice coin. The reverse appears to be semi PL and to get the PL designation both sides must pass the test of clear reflectivity and a solid contrast between the mirror fields and devices helps get the PL designation.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18644 Posts |
photos are way too small to work from. try using the optimizer on this site to help based on the obverse a resub is not warranted. the chance you will get an upgrade or PL designation is slim. eye appeal based on obverse is AVG- for a MS63. I had it at 62+ |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36638 Posts |
The grade on the slab looks correct. You would most likely be wasting money to resubmit.
Welcome to CCF and thanks for your service to this country!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
Quote:
The key distinction between a regular MS Morgan and PL (or DMPL) is not just the reflectivity of the fields but the cameo contrast between the fields and the devices (bust and eagle.) Technically, devices on Morgan dollars do not need to be frosted; the pl and dmpl designations pertain to the depth of the mirrors, not the frost. At PCGS, the mirrors need to be between 2-4" of clear reflectivity for pl, and 6-8" for the dmpl designation. |
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,197 |
|
Posted 10/03/2019 6:44 pm
