My 1900 DMPL didn't cut it at NGC

[prudden]

A link to my original post of my 1900 Morgan will be at the bottom.

I'll put up one more picture here as well to illustrate my point. It's a littlke blurry because my finger wouldn't stay still and it's a little out of focus.The reverse of the coin reflects better.

Apparently,I messed up my invoice for this crossover from a PCI holder. I wrote ANY for grade, but I added a notation PL or DMPL? It wasn't really meant as an instruction,just something to look for. I wasn't sure if they looked for that designation automatically. But,I know they can't read my mind so, it's definitely my fault. ?I did -mail them to try to correct it a few days after it was posted as received but I guess it was too late.

Still, this Morgan was graded MS 66 DMPL by PCI. I do understand it probably wouldn't grade the same but, what I don't understand is how a so-called dmpl doesn't even make PL. I realize PCI had some problems,but they weren't complete dummies or corrupt were they? One poster suggested NCS might be able to help.

Here's a new picture and the link to my original post. Thanks for looking. Pete

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2422181&page=4#Post2422181

 

[jgrinz]

What did they grade it .. I missed the guessing portion

 

[prudden]

What did they grade it .. I missed the guessing portion

 

I was just finishing off this thread I started. No grade." Did not meet minimum". That's what's kind of odd. I put ANY in the minimum grade check box.

 

Sorry guys, I started a new thread with this. I should have added it to the end of the original.

[James_OldeTowne]

One poster suggested NCS might be able to help.

That was me, and I stand by that advice. I am positive that PCI went through a stage where they would throw "PL" or "DMPL" at just about anything with luster, and this is the same time period when they couldn't grade worth a darn.

 

In its current state, the coin does not look PL to me.

[prudden]

One poster suggested NCS might be able to help.

That was me, and I stand by that advice. I am positive that PCI went through a stage where they would throw "PL" or "DMPL" at just about anything with luster, and this is the same time period when they couldn't grade worth a darn.

 

In its current state, the coin does not look PL to me.

 

Hey James,

You're talking about the hazy toning,correct?. I understand. The reflection is better in hand on the Obverse in the 2nd pic and much better on the reverse. Now,I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a PL. Is contrast a must? Because I have a 1885 Morgan that is all mirror,I mean very,very clear deep mirror like chrome and very little contrast.I have a picture of the reverse where it reflects the reflections from my fingernails.It's not been graded yet.

 

[BankNote1]

Friends don't let friends buy PCI coins!!!!! The grades on gold labeled PCI coins don't mean anything.

[prudden]

Finally got may box of coins back today. Now the 1900 has a note that says "Altered Surfaces".I don't know what that means. Does anyone?

[cpm9ball]

I have an 1899-O that used to reside in an old ANACS MS63DMPL. I decided to send it to NGC because I thought it might have a shot at 64. It came back "Altered Surfaces".

 

Last January, I took it to the NGC table at FUN and asked David Lange to look at it. He said that it appeared to have some sort of haze on the surfaces, but that NCS could probably conserve it. He also said that "Altered Surfaces" is sort of a catch-all for a variety of reasons that aren't specifically categorized.

 

Chris

[prudden]

I have an 1899-O that used to reside in an old ANACS MS63DMPL. I decided to send it to NGC because I thought it might have a shot at 64. It came back "Altered Surfaces".

 

Last January, I took it to the NGC table at FUN and asked David Lange to look at it. He said that it appeared to have some sort of haze on the surfaces, but that NCS could probably conserve it. He also said that "Altered Surfaces" is sort of a catch-all for a variety of reasons that aren't specifically categorized.

 

Chris

 

Yeah, that sounds like what James_Earlyus said in another thread. I didn't get a note attached to try NCS like I did with the 81S and the 99 IHC. But considering the potential of this coin I probably should try NCS anyway. I'm pretty broke though. It'll have to wait a few months. You wouldn't happen to have a picture of that coin? Pete

[cpm9ball]

I have an 1899-O that used to reside in an old ANACS MS63DMPL. I decided to send it to NGC because I thought it might have a shot at 64. It came back "Altered Surfaces".

 

Last January, I took it to the NGC table at FUN and asked David Lange to look at it. He said that it appeared to have some sort of haze on the surfaces, but that NCS could probably conserve it. He also said that "Altered Surfaces" is sort of a catch-all for a variety of reasons that aren't specifically categorized.

 

Chris

 

Yeah, that sounds like what James_Earlyus said in another thread. I didn't get a note attached to try NCS like I did with the 81S and the 99 IHC. But considering the potential of this coin I probably should try NCS anyway. I'm pretty broke though. It'll have to wait a few months. You wouldn't happen to have a picture of that coin? Pete

 

I'm at work right now, but I'll post a photo of it when I get home.

 

Chris

[James_OldeTowne]

As is the case with proof coins, haze can easily develop on prooflike coins, which will tend to obscure reflectivity. Whether or not the haze occurred "naturally", NGC and PCGS may call it "altered surfaces". But I've learned that if properly conserved, the haze on the coin may be removed, revealing mirrored (or semi-mirrored) surfaces beneath. Chris, the coin you picked up from me may be such a case - hazed from being stored in a slab.

 

With all due respect to the TPGs, I am 100% convinced that slabs are not inert, and that they can cause haze on coins.

[cpm9ball]

As is the case with proof coins, haze can easily develop on prooflike coins, which will tend to obscure reflectivity. Whether or not the haze occurred "naturally", NGC and PCGS may call it "altered surfaces". But I've learned that if properly conserved, the haze on the coin may be removed, revealing mirrored (or semi-mirrored) surfaces beneath. Chris, the coin you picked up from me may be such a case - hazed from being stored in a slab.

 

With all due respect to the TPGs, I am 100% convinced that slabs are not inert, and that they can cause haze on coins.

 

James, that is David Lange's opinion. I have always loved the coin, and I thank you for letting me have it. It will, of course, be submitted for conservation after I move. I still think it has a shot at 64.

 

Chris