| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 3,168 |
|
Valued Member
United States
211 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
I think that if submitted to NGC or PCGS it would come back MS-64 maybe PL
Tim Hughes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1143 Posts |
Very hard to tell from a picture sometimes as a mark will be magnified by mirrored fields. What you might consider is taking it to a show where they have onsight grading. Go through the presubmission and have them give you an opinion if it would cross and at what grade/mirror designation. That is what I would do.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
To help maintain what is left of the fields mirror appearance, this coin should be in a truly airtight capsule, to arrest further patination.
OK if the new slab that it goes in, is airtight.
At least, (if not airtight) a slab would be better than an album.
If the existing slab is not airtight,
ever thought of very carefully touching the edge of the existing slab with acetone, to weld seal the joint?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Hard to tell in pictures, but in general PL and DMPL standards are much tighter today than back then. I would assume it would likely be a PL today Quote:
If the existing slab is not airtight,
ever thought of very carefully touching the edge of the existing slab with acetone, to weld seal the joint? Nothing on earth is actually airtight, the PCGS one is water tight to an extent which is the closest we get. They ebay approved TPGs are all much better protection for a coin than albums/folders/2x2s etc But NEVER ever mess with the seals or seems of a slab. The second you do that the slab becomes worthless as people just assume it was tampered with and you resealed it after switching the coin. You can't even cross them or get them reholdered if they show up with a home job on the seals. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I'd leave well enough alone.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4468 Posts |
Really hard to tell if coin would cross at DMPL from photos. The coin appears to be MS 64/65 PL. Do not crack-out, No harm, except the cost, to cross at grade. A number of the older holders NGC, PCGS and ANACS have the DMPL designation, but are PL by today's standards.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
211 Posts |
Thanks for the feedback guys. Oh and I dont own this, I was thinking about maybe purchasing it but for the price, around $800, I'm not sure if it would be a wise purchase because I've read that older dmpl stuff does not hold to today's standards. Tough one cause I like the coin in that holder. Maybe I'll make an offer on it?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18645 Posts |
someone who is going to purchase this coin knows to grade the coin and not rely on the holder, therefore, even if it would cross at same grade & designation imo I would pay the same. that's just me. the chances it comes back based on the photos here is tough to say as we cant tell the actual field depth. the chances it drops a grade and designation is more of a risk than its worth. if it loses a grade OR a designation level you are looking at reducing the value by 50% or even more if it comes back 64PL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
No current generation slabs are airtight. No previous generation slabs have ever been airtight. There is a current generation PCGS slab that is watertight but that's the best you can do.
Gas molecules are slippery little buggers
-----Burton 50+ year / Life / Emeritus ANA member (joined 12/1/1973) Life member: Numismatics International, CONECA Member: TNA, FtWCC, NETCC, EveryCountry (online) coin club Owned by three cats and a wife of 40+ years (joined 1983) Author: 3rd Edition of the Sample Slabs book, https://www.sampleslabs.info/ |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
That specific slab was graded by ANACS a couple years after they were purchased by Amos Press. By which point if you are a proponent of strict ANA grading standards, they were well and truly into market grading. Today everybody does marking grading despite the TPG's claiming that they don't. So what you have to ask is his standards changed so much since 1992 or 1993? -----Burton 50+ year / Life / Emeritus ANA member (joined 12/1/1973) Life member: Numismatics International, CONECA Member: TNA, FtWCC, NETCC, EveryCountry (online) coin club Owned by three cats and a wife of 40+ years (joined 1983) Author: 3rd Edition of the Sample Slabs book, https://www.sampleslabs.info/ |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
As far as the mirror fields are concerned, what more important - the coin or the slab?
Nevertheless, better in a slab for protection than in an album.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4468 Posts |
Pass on the coin. The seller takes quality photos and there is nothing in his photos that indicate mirror depth at 6" plus needed for DMPL. Would not pay over $500, but it does look like a coin with nice eye appeal. You can find a 1883 CC MS 65 PL in the $500 range with mirrors close to DMPL and frosty devices.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
Sure doesn't look 65 to me, and very little chance of dmpl.
Find one that you like already in a PCGS holder, and already with a green bean.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1023 Posts |
Looks like a plain ms64 to me as well (no pl or dmpl)
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
The difference between PL and DMPL is in the depth of the mirroring of the fields as noted above, more so than the contrast between the fields and the devices.
My grade would be MS 64 PL. Old white ANACS holders often were very liberal with DMPL grading, and PL grading too, a problem that also affected early PCGS rattler holders to a lesser extent.
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 |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,168 |
Posted 12/25/2019 2:17 pm
