Crack out results.

[nk1nk]

So I cracked a few coins, just common date stuff and sent them to NGC. Curiosity got to me so I thought I would try it. so here are my results and I am just curious, what are some of your results? Good or bad let's hear them.

 

1879 S Old ANACS holder MS64

 

I thought this coin was a lock at MS64 PL but alas NGC just gave it a MS64 no proof like. Side note these ANACS holders are a pain in the to crack out.

 

 

1882 S PCGS MS64

 

Again i thought a lock at MS64 PL but NGC says MS63 PL Hey I got the PL but dang a 63!

 

 

1888 ICG MS65

 

I thought this coin looked great and should get a star, and I felt 65 was accurate but could see it go 64, I almost didn't send this one. NGC gave it a star but only a MS64*

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I haven't read what you wrote - I'm going to post my guesses first and then go back and look:

 

MS-64

MS-63PL

MS-64 if the luster is strong, 63+ if it is only average like it appears.

[bsshog40]

I agree. I also agree that the 79' looks PL. Could be liberty not having enough cameo around the neck and cap. Very nice tho'.

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree. I also agree that the 79' looks PL. Could be liberty not having enough cameo around the neck and cap. Very nice tho'.

 

For the thousandth time, cameo is not required for a PL designation. It is based solely on the depth of the mirrors. The fact that many of these have a cameo contrast is a bonus, but I can show you just as many PL's with zero cameo (DMPLs too).

 

The 1879S did not get PL because the reverse mirrors are not deep enough. The obverse looks good, but the reverse is semi-pl at most.

[bsshog40]

I agree. I also agree that the 79' looks PL. Could be liberty not having enough cameo around the neck and cap. Very nice tho'.

 

For the thousandth time, cameo is not required for a PL designation. It is based solely on the depth of the mirrors. The fact that many of these have a cameo contrast is a bonus, but I can show you just as many PL's with zero cameo (DMPLs too).

 

The 1879S did not get PL because the reverse mirrors are not deep enough. The obverse looks good, but the reverse is semi-pl at most.

Thank you for the reminder Jason! I always seem to associate both mirrors and cameo with PL. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers tho'!

[coinman_23885]

I graded each coin straight up and then looked at the NGC grades; I agree with all of the grades and designations except I wouldn't have given the one coin a star.

[physics-fan3.14]

No feathers ruffled, its all good. I'm just trying to squash that little inaccuracy, and figured the best way to do it was to be very direct.

[erwindoc]

I think you did pretty good. If you want them to look at the PL status again the submission costs are really cheap.

[jerseycat10]

I agree. I also agree that the 79' looks PL. Could be liberty not having enough cameo around the neck and cap. Very nice tho'.

 

For the thousandth time, cameo is not required for a PL designation.

 

EASY....

[bsshog40]

I think you did pretty good. If you want them to look at the PL status again the submission costs are really cheap.

I actually agree with Jason on no PL for the 79'. What looks like dull spots on the sides is probably strike luster and a little mirrors clashing in the picture. I hope I described that right.

[physics-fan3.14]

I think you did pretty good. If you want them to look at the PL status again the submission costs are really cheap.

I actually agree with Jason on no PL for the 79'. What looks like dull spots on the sides is probably strike luster and a little mirrors clashing in the picture. I hope I described that right.

 

As an aside on the same subject - if it isn't designated PL on the small white ANACS holder, it will almost certainly not be PL anywhere else. ANACS was a little bit more liberal with their designations, and awarded PL to some questionable pieces. So if it didn't meet their easier criteria, it will have a very hard time at NGC. Judge any PL's carefully in their holders, because it is not assured that they will cross.

[Raisethis2]

I think your experiment reflects the facts regarding grading standards by NGC in 2013. That being that they are getting more strict than in days gone by and enjoy crushing common dates when given the chance.

 

Conversely, having something a bit more rare that seems undergraded is an excellent submission candidate. I've been tempted to do the same with ANACS graded coins I have.

 

Thanks for falling on your sword on our behalf.

 

 

[mkman123]

your coins are great and much better looking than normal ones so be proud

[coinman_23885]

I think you did pretty good. If you want them to look at the PL status again the submission costs are really cheap.

I actually agree with Jason on no PL for the 79'. What looks like dull spots on the sides is probably strike luster and a little mirrors clashing in the picture. I hope I described that right.

 

As an aside on the same subject - if it isn't designated PL on the small white ANACS holder, it will almost certainly not be PL anywhere else. ANACS was a little bit more liberal with their designations, and awarded PL to some questionable pieces. So if it didn't meet their easier criteria, it will have a very hard time at NGC. Judge any PL's carefully in their holders, because it is not assured that they will cross.

 

I agree that they are hit and miss, and like all companies, they went through phases. With this said, I think it is equally important to point out that the same phenomenon is also present with older PCGS and NGC holders. (I don't want it to appear that we are singling out ANACS, when the OP is cracking other companies' plastic as well). There are many DMPL and PL coins from the PCGS OGH era and the NGC no line fatty era that would either receive a downgraded designation or would not warrant a designation at all. I'm not the only one who has observed this trend.

[Coindude]

Jason, would you say that more of the modern pieces are more non-cameo in PL? In my experience, and I will say that I don't search for PL coins, the early coins, especially the 19th century coins I've seen in PL... exhibit more of a cameo appearance. But I do understand the cameo contrast is not required for the PL designation, so you don't have to repeat yourself for the thousand and first time!

[coinman_23885]

, the early coins, especially the 19th century coins I've seen in PL... exhibit more of a cameo appearance.

 

Not necessarily. While some have contrasts, many do not. My experience is that cameo pieces are much more difficult to come by.

[BLive1972]

This isn't a challenge to the OP, but why would you break a coin out of a PCGS holder and send to NGC? I can understand the ICG because even I had trouble getting rid of one. It's a tad confusing to me.

[physics-fan3.14]

Jason, would you say that more of the modern pieces are more non-cameo in PL? In my experience, and I will say that I don't search for PL coins, the early coins, especially the 19th century coins I've seen in PL... exhibit more of a cameo appearance. But I do understand the cameo contrast is not required for the PL designation, so you don't have to repeat yourself for the thousand and first time!

 

As a very loose guideline, that is true. There are plenty of 19th century PL's with no cameo, but the 19th century PL's often exhibit a certain level of cameo contrast (sometimes quite deep). 20th century PL's rarely display cameo, or only light cameo.

 

The cameo effect is obviously very attractive and desirable. Given a choice of two identical coins, one with and one without, I'm going to choose the cameo - but the clear takeaway point is that it is not required. It is a common misunderstanding, because the Morgan is the most widely collected and most recognized PL - and it almost always has cameo.

 

An example from the FUN luncheon - I showed my DPL Kennedy half at the table, and GDMSJP (familiar to CoinTalk members) saw it and immediately said "Bull****, there is no cameo!" And that is true, the devices, portrait and fields are all similarly reflective, but that is how 20th century PL's often appear.

 

Sorry to hijack your thread, Nick.

[bsshog40]

This is the only PL I have and as you can see it has some cameo but not all.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

From what I see here, I like the new NGC grades!

[coinman_23885]

It is a common misunderstanding, because the Morgan is the most widely collected and most recognized PL - and it almost always has cameo.

 

I think you are being far too general here. While I will agree that PL and DMPL Morgans demonstrate cameo contrast at a greater rate than other 19th century PL coins, I would hardly state that they "almost always ha[ve] cameo." Many dates are common with cameo contrasts, while others, particularly the later dates, rarely come with cameo. I think it is far too difficult to generalize here. With regards to the cameo contrast, I would consider the cameo coins much like the first strikes among first strikes (i.e. the first few pieces are likely to show cameo, and the next few, while they may have PL fields, are less likely to display cameo contrasts).

[physics-fan3.14]

You are correct, Kenny - any generalizations besides the most general are too erroneous. I will amend my statement to say - Morgan PL's are more often found with cameo than many other series.

[nk1nk]

Jason, would you say that more of the modern pieces are more non-cameo in PL? In my experience, and I will say that I don't search for PL coins, the early coins, especially the 19th century coins I've seen in PL... exhibit more of a cameo appearance. But I do understand the cameo contrast is not required for the PL designation, so you don't have to repeat yourself for the thousand and first time!

 

As a very loose guideline, that is true. There are plenty of 19th century PL's with no cameo, but the 19th century PL's often exhibit a certain level of cameo contrast (sometimes quite deep). 20th century PL's rarely display cameo, or only light cameo.

 

The cameo effect is obviously very attractive and desirable. Given a choice of two identical coins, one with and one without, I'm going to choose the cameo - but the clear takeaway point is that it is not required. It is a common misunderstanding, because the Morgan is the most widely collected and most recognized PL - and it almost always has cameo.

 

An example from the FUN luncheon - I showed my DPL Kennedy half at the table, and GDMSJP (familiar to CoinTalk members) saw it and immediately said "Bull****, there is no cameo!" And that is true, the devices, portrait and fields are all similarly reflective, but that is how 20th century PL's often appear.

 

Sorry to hijack your thread, Nick.

 

No worries Jason, I appreciate all the comments so far and have found yours very insightful.

 

Nick

[nk1nk]

This isn't a challenge to the OP, but why would you break a coin out of a PCGS holder and send to NGC? I can understand the ICG because even I had trouble getting rid of one. It's a tad confusing to me.

 

A few reason, I wanted the PL designation but im not a member of PCGS so I couldn't send it to them. And frankly I prefer NGC, im not a kool aid drinker and don't buy into the whole PCGS brings more money, especially common date Morgan's.

 

Nick