Did I Get The DMPL? New Photo

It doesn't look like one in the pic. Is that coin slabbed? Did you use a camera or a scanner? I often have problems getting true fidelity in photos.

There's no way to show reflectivity in a picture unless you have something reflecting in the fields of the coin:



To be considered DMPL, you should be able to read reflected 12pt type in the coin at a minimum distance of 8". It's almost impossible to accurately represent in a photograph, because you'd need to show the coin, the print you're reflecting, and the distance between them, and still have the coin large enough to read the print. That would be a pretty large pic.

For the record, the coin I posted here didn't make DMPL from NGC.

I was under the impression that a DMPL will show black or dark fields, as in this 1880 S DMPL that I photographed several months ago.

what grading company graded the coins as DMPL? I have seen some sellers say some coins are DMPL and its actually not even PL and definitely not DMPL. PCGS requires I think 10" reflectivity where some others require 8" (if I am not mistaken) to meet the DMPL requirements. Thats like placing the coin 10" above a standard font on a business card and being able to read it like you were looking in a mirror. Pretty close to what it would look like if you were to take a modern proof coin and do the same thing

still just looks like luster instead of DMPL to me. Are all those hits actually on the coin all over it or is it just a picture anomaly? I don't think I have ever seen a 1882-S with that many contact marks. Is the coin graded or in some kind of case (if so the scratches/hits could be on the case causing it to look like hits on the coin)?

Here is a 1884-CC DMPL of mine to show another way DMPL can look