1887-S MORGAN. GTG, DMPL?

[JOBESSI]

i picked this one up at a local pawn shop. I fell in love with the look. I tried to take pics at different angles and lighting so that you can see the detail and strong DMPL fields. It almost looks hammered! whatcha think?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I'd grade it 63 or maybe a shot at 64 (hard to tell from the pics). It is not DMPL, and very probably would not get a PL designation either. It's hard to tell from your pictures. There are definitely areas of prooflike-ness on the obverse, but there are large patches where there does not appear to be reflectivity. The reverse also appears to be semi-prooflike at best.

 

Again, looks like a nice coin, and if you got it for a good price and are happy with it there is nothing wrong with it that I can see. It just isn't DMPL.

[BillJones]

The coin does not appear to be P-L. A better way to take the photos is to place the coin flat and then shot it from an angle. That photo will not be good for grading purposes, but it should show whatever mirrors might be reflected from the surfaces.

[MarkFeld]

From what I can see in the images, I would guess MS63 and neither DPL nor PL.

[$ilverHawk]

i picked this one up at a local pawn shop. I fell in love with the look. I tried to take pics at different angles and lighting so that you can see the detail and strong DMPL fields. It almost looks hammered! whatcha think?

 

 

It is very clear from your photo presentation that you are very convinced that this coin has PL and/or DMPL qualities. That may be the case in hand. But the photos show no frost on any of the devices. That type of contrast is necessary for a PL or DMPL coin. In fact, the photos show reflective device surfaces which would make the PL or DMPL designation not apply.

 

Nice coin, but not PL or DMPL.

 

Carl

[Coindude]

I've found that most of the pawn shop finds have been well mishandled. Not sure if this one has but there is no chance of this one being PL or DMPL. That being said, it is pretty well beat up for an MS coin and don't think it would go higher than a 61.

[physics-fan3.14]

It is very clear from your photo presentation that you are very convinced that this coin has PL and/or DMPL qualities. That may be the case in hand. But the photos show no frost on any of the devices. That type of contrast is necessary for a PL or DMPL coin. In fact, the photos show reflective device surfaces which would make the PL or DMPL designation not apply.

 

Nice coin, but not PL or DMPL.

 

Carl

 

Carl, over and over I have said this, but people keep making the same mistake: Cameo contrast is not required for the PL designation. It is based solely on the depth of the mirrors. Cameo contrast often occurs on late 19th century prooflike coins, due to their method of manufacture, but it is not required!

 

The OP's coin, simply put, will not get a PL because it doesn't have the required mirrors.

[FILTHYHOARD]

Well, it's difficult to see exactly what's going on with those images, but my best guess would be a low end mint state coin (MS62) with no PL or DPL designation.

[Mary B]

MS-61 but really hard to tell from these pictures, whats going on with the cheek on the obverse?

[Ryan S.]

It is hard to say, but I think I see quite a few diagonal lines on the obverse which could be scratches from pawn shop mishandling or die polish lines.

Would I be correct in saying that a coin struck with freshly polished dies would be more reflective? Never the less, I don't see enough reflectivity to qualify for a PL designation from these pics.

[A.Phillips]

From what I see, it doesn't look like PL nor DMPL, but it probably will get a plus or star designation?