Semi-PL?

[Nutmeg Coin]

"Semi-PL" was a slab description some years ago. Would this be of any merit these days, or would it undermine the "prooflike" standard?

[rockhobby]

In answer to your question, I don't believe it would serve any purpose.

 

But in my personal experience NGC awards a semi-proof like coin the * (star) designation. I have several Jefferson nickels in my "Toner" set that are given stars for their almost proof like qualities and when I was collecting Washington quarters quite a few were given a star for their proof like characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug

[RWB]

Is that like "semi-pregnant?"

[cladking]

There are gradations of PL. I really wouldn't mind three levels instead of one. Indeed, I would like to see them lower the bar significantly so every date appears as PL. There simply aren't going to be any coins like PL 1974-P quarters unless the bar is lowered quite a bit.

[RWB]

Lowering the bar sounds like corrupting quality, or giving every kid a "Participation Trophy." Do you really want your coins to get a "Participation Trophy?"

 

(Just making an analogy or two.)

[coinman1794]

"Semi-PL" was a slab description some years ago. Would this be of any merit these days, or would it undermine the "prooflike" standard?

 

No. Yes. And here's why:

 

Many coins will have reflective surfaces that qualify for semi-Prooflike. There is nothing special about them, in most cases. Of course there are exceptions, as a few issues are almost never found with reflectivity. However, it would be utterly meaningless on more coins than on which it would be meaningful. Most Moderns are semi-PL out the gate, for instance. Coins that meet the stringent standard of surface reflectivity required for PL are much more elusive and special.

[AHFreak]

"Semi-PL" was a slab description some years ago. Would this be of any merit these days, or would it undermine the "prooflike" standard?

 

No. Yes. And here's why:

 

Many coins will have reflective surfaces that qualify for semi-Prooflike. There is nothing special about them, in most cases. Of course there are exceptions, as a few issues are almost never found with reflectivity. However, it would be utterly meaningless on more coins than on which it would be meaningful. Most Moderns are semi-PL out the gate, for instance. Coins that meet the stringent standard of surface reflectivity required for PL are much more elusive and special.

 

What is the stringent standard required for PL designation? Let's say for 1964-1970 Kennedy half dollars, is there a "standard" that they(graders) are considering when designating PL, or not designating it on coins that look very PL to my eye?

[World Colonial]

Sounds like another justification to inflate the price level. The coin is the same coin regardless of what is on the label.

 

There are already 11 MS grades, CAC which effectively segments each MS grade into three more, +, *, "special designation strikes" (such as FS) and PL. Much of this is numismatic minutia and mostly if not entirely exists to inflate the price level.

 

Eventually, labels may read "MSXX * +, PL, !@&% with multiple stickers on the holder. The coin itself won't be visible anymore..

[James_OldeTowne]

"Semi-PL" was a slab description some years ago. Would this be of any merit these days, or would it undermine the "prooflike" standard?

I tend to be one that can't stand additional designations (stars, pluses, stickers, yellow moons, green clovers, blah), but I've long believed that "SPL" should be used. Interestingly, having collected and seen a huge number of old slabs over the years, so many dollars called "PL" 25 years ago should only be SPL. (Likewise, many DMPLs certified in the 1990s should only be PL.)

[DWLange]

In my writing I frequently use the term "semi prooflike." It describes a coin that seems prooflike to most but is not quite reflective enough to be designated as PL by a grading service.

[leeg]

I feel we have too many designations as it is.

 

Very subjective on which coin deserves the designation.

 

NGC has a huge market in all things PL. PCGS does very little in this category other than Morgans and RD copper.

 

A PL I used to own:

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to JA this coin had just a hair too much stacking friction to garner the gold.

 

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

It looks like NGC sometimes does PL and star as in this 1893 $10 Liberty gold coin: http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/eagles/1893-10-ms61-prooflike-ngc-ngc-census-25-55-pcgs-population-0-0-mintage-1-840-895-78725-/a/1122-9611.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

Looking through the range of MS61-63 prooflike coins can be challenging in terms of criteria.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

i don't grade from pictures, but, as far as a language descriptive of reasons for an action or inaction, that seems a little inventive to me.

[cladking]

Lowering the bar sounds like corrupting quality, or giving every kid a "Participation Trophy." Do you really want your coins to get a "Participation Trophy?"

 

(Just making an analogy or two.)

 

Without a designation one has to judge from pictures to buy and it's impossible to do statistical analysis concerning incidence of PL except at the highest level.

 

Without a "Participation Trophy" you don't know how many coins your's had to beat out to make PL.

 

Without more gradations most coins won't exist in PL at all and this will impede people from collecting them. Some sets would just be staggeringly beautiful in PL but will never be assembled because the collector believes it can't be done. The last I looked at the PCGS pops there were hardly any PL quarters at all but all of them exist in "semi-PL" and some dates not represented in the pops actually are common quite PL. There are lots and lots of '72-D quarters in PL.

 

I don't remember seeing a lot of silver in PL back in the day but I'd guess most of these exist as well in semi-PL.

[World Colonial]

Without a "Participation Trophy" you don't know how many coins your's had to beat out to make PL.

 

Without more gradations most coins won't exist in PL at all and this will impede people from collecting them. Some sets would just be staggeringly beautiful in PL but will never be assembled because the collector believes it can't be done.

 

I can see that you may be right but if you are, there must be even more plastic buyers than I thought because this type of thinking doesn't make any sense.

 

Grading, color designations (RD/RB/BN), "special designation strikes" such as FS and FH, DCAM/CAM all have coins that are "near miss". They strike out and get a lower designation or none at all. So it is with PL.

 

I can see why someone would want the semi-PL designation to "make" the coin and later sell it for more. I don't see any reason why someone would prefer to buy one of these coins with the label that could have been bought for less without it. But then maybe its just me because I would rather pay less than more and don't collect labels (or stickers) on plastic holders.

 

What's next? Additional hair splitting for these other designations?

 

Sounds like a great marketing gimmick for the TPG and yet another way for collectors to waste their money on anything other than buying coins.

[cladking]

Without a "Participation Trophy" you don't know how many coins your's had to beat out to make PL.

 

Without more gradations most coins won't exist in PL at all and this will impede people from collecting them. Some sets would just be staggeringly beautiful in PL but will never be assembled because the collector believes it can't be done.

 

I can see that you may be right but if you are, there must be even more plastic buyers than I thought because this type of thinking doesn't make any sense.

 

Grading, color designations (RD/RB/BN), "special designation strikes" such as FS and FH, DCAM/CAM all have coins that are "near miss". They strike out and get a lower designation or none at all. So it is with PL.

 

I can see why someone would want the semi-PL designation to "make" the coin and later sell it for more. I don't see any reason why someone would prefer to buy one of these coins with the label that could have been bought for less without it. But then maybe its just me because I would rather pay less than more and don't collect labels (or stickers) on plastic holders.

 

What's next? Additional hair splitting for these other designations?

 

Sounds like a great marketing gimmick for the TPG and yet another way for collectors to waste their money on anything other than buying coins.

 

Almost every date of Jefferson nickel can be found full steps. Most every date of merc dimes can be found FB. The list goes on. But this isn't at all true with PL because most coins are unknown in the level of PL required for the designation. Now if you google PL you'll find very few coins available and you'll never see coins like '74-P quarters. Most of the few coins you see are dates that are distressinly common in PL like '96-D. There are literally hundreds of these out there. You can't make a set of anything with only a few dates. You can't google for coins that fit your set but don't make the grade.

 

Personally I find nice clean PL's exceedingly beautiful but I don't even much care for them when they're all scratched up. I've probably spent several coins that would gread PL today because they were unattractive and you can't save everything. Not only was 25c a lot of money but they take up room in safety deposit boxes.

 

Would I profit if they instituted more levels? Yes, certainly but I'd be for it anyway because I believe it will help the hobby and help coin collectors.

[david3142]

We do not need a semi-PL designation just like we don't need an almost-full step or almost full-head designation*. Collectors that are interested in semi-PL (and PL/DMPL) coins will pay premiums for them whether or not it is indicated on the holder. Ditto single-sided mirrored coins.

 

Maybe MAC should add semiPL! I know ANACS had the one-sided designations.

[Nutmeg Coin]

You have other grading services like ICG and Anacs that have no plus or star grading addition, so it might be a way for them to attract additional interest. Skip Fazzari at ICG wants the designation, apparently Randy Campbell does not. I had a Bust half they graded AU55, which NGC graded AU58 PL which raises questions on the reliability of their PL designations.

[AHFreak]

I am actually quite surprised to hear someone here say they want yet another designation, or semi-designation in this case. ... not everyone cares about PL, some collectors even find it unattractive and would stay away from PL coins. . . I think the less designations the 3PG's have the better as it would leave it up to the collector to look for/find what he/she is looking for independent of labels (making it more about the coin versus the label) and as far as I'm concerned that "hunt" is a very fun part of the process for many.

 

It should go in the direction of being more about the coin, less about the label, not the other way around.

[coinman1794]

"Semi-PL" was a slab description some years ago. Would this be of any merit these days, or would it undermine the "prooflike" standard?

 

No. Yes. And here's why:

 

Many coins will have reflective surfaces that qualify for semi-Prooflike. There is nothing special about them, in most cases. Of course there are exceptions, as a few issues are almost never found with reflectivity. However, it would be utterly meaningless on more coins than on which it would be meaningful. Most Moderns are semi-PL out the gate, for instance. Coins that meet the stringent standard of surface reflectivity required for PL are much more elusive and special.

 

What is the stringent standard required for PL designation? Let's say for 1964-1970 Kennedy half dollars, is there a "standard" that they(graders) are considering when designating PL, or not designating it on coins that look very PL to my eye?

 

Prooflike coins have to have strong mirrors ( some services have actually specified in the past that they want a crisp reflection from between 2 and 4 inches away) over the entire expanses of the fields of both sides, with no breaks in the glossy mirrored luster. The slightest erosion from reflective to satiny will negate the designation.

 

Very few 1964 to 1970 Kennedy halves halve [sic] full mirrors over both sides, as well as the strength of reflectivity needed to graduate from semi-Prooflike to Prooflike.

[coinman1794]

It looks like NGC sometimes does PL and star as in this 1893 $10 Liberty gold coin: http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/eagles/1893-10-ms61-prooflike-ngc-ngc-census-25-55-pcgs-population-0-0-mintage-1-840-895-78725-/a/1122-9611.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

Looking through the range of MS61-63 prooflike coins can be challenging in terms of criteria.

 

There are two scenarios in which a PL coin can also be given the Star; either to note exceptional eye appeal or to highlight on obverse that is DPL.

 

In the case of that 1893, the pictures are bad, but I do see spots, and it's probably safe to assume the Star was not given for eye appeal.

[coinman1794]

Lowering the bar sounds like corrupting quality, or giving every kid a "Participation Trophy." Do you really want your coins to get a "Participation Trophy?"

 

(Just making an analogy or two.)

 

Without a designation one has to judge from pictures to buy and it's impossible to do statistical analysis concerning incidence of PL except at the highest level.

 

Without a "Participation Trophy" you don't know how many coins your's had to beat out to make PL.

 

Without more gradations most coins won't exist in PL at all and this will impede people from collecting them. Some sets would just be staggeringly beautiful in PL but will never be assembled because the collector believes it can't be done. The last I looked at the PCGS pops there were hardly any PL quarters at all but all of them exist in "semi-PL" and some dates not represented in the pops actually are common quite PL. There are lots and lots of '72-D quarters in PL.

 

I don't remember seeing a lot of silver in PL back in the day but I'd guess most of these exist as well in semi-PL.

 

Assigning a Semi-PL designation would give people the erroneous notion that there was something special about them. Again, there are exceptions in certain series, but most coins have semi-PL representatives, and moderns in particular, have ubiquitous Semi-PLs. The 2011 Mint Sets come to mind.

[jpcienkus]

Lowering the bar sounds like corrupting quality, or giving every kid a "Participation Trophy." Do you really want your coins to get a "Participation Trophy?"

 

(Just making an analogy or two.)

 

Without a designation one has to judge from pictures to buy and it's impossible to do statistical analysis concerning incidence of PL except at the highest level.

 

Without a "Participation Trophy" you don't know how many coins your's had to beat out to make PL.

 

Without more gradations most coins won't exist in PL at all and this will impede people from collecting them. Some sets would just be staggeringly beautiful in PL but will never be assembled because the collector believes it can't be done. The last I looked at the PCGS pops there were hardly any PL quarters at all but all of them exist in "semi-PL" and some dates not represented in the pops actually are common quite PL. There are lots and lots of '72-D quarters in PL.

 

I don't remember seeing a lot of silver in PL back in the day but I'd guess most of these exist as well in semi-PL.

 

Where are you seeing any "PL" designations on PCGS certified coins other than Morgans?

 

I don't like the idea of offering "near miss" designations either. It's either yes, or no.

[messydesk]

My impression of the current PL and DMPL standards is that these have much more variation over the past 30 years of TPGs than the numeric grades do. There are coins labeled DMPL in coveted old holders that would not even be called PL today. One side effect of this is that there's little confidence that there won't be a wild swing in the future. Introducing a SPL grade without a visible stabilization of what PL and DMPL doesn't do this.

[cladking]

... and moderns in particular, have ubiquitous Semi-PLs. The 2011 Mint Sets come to mind.

 

I don't see that this is any sort of problem. People won't send in common semi-PL's unless they are in the highest grades. People don't send in 1971 nickels to get FS unless they are very high grades because these are common in FS.

[cladking]

I am actually quite surprised to hear someone here say they want yet another designation...

 

The problem here is one of perspective.

 

You see more grades mucking up a nice simple system to "grade" your coins and I see collectors have simply turned over pricing to third parties because they lack the conviction to do their own pricing.

 

Essentially what we have is third parties grouping coins by value; AG-3, AU-58, or MS-66. No two AG-3's look alike any more than any two MS-66's look alike but with the grades and stickers affixed we can just look up their price on the sheet. It doesn't matter to collectors that one likes nice original surfaces and another like nice crisp strikes because they know exactly what to pay for every "graded" coin.

 

I don't like this system. I'd like to see the graders grade coins rather than price them and, perhaps, the only way to do this is one baby step at a time; more designations. More and more and more designations until you can picture a coin in your minds eye by its grade alone.

 

Yes, this will make pricing more difficult but by that time we can just send our coins to "third party pricers" to tell us what it's worth on the current market and ascertain its legitimacy. Those with knowledge and courage will be able to price their own coins just like now.

[physics-fan3.14]

There are gradations of PL. I really wouldn't mind three levels instead of one. Indeed, I would like to see them lower the bar significantly so every date appears as PL. There simply aren't going to be any coins like PL 1974-P quarters unless the bar is lowered quite a bit.

 

The standard is a standard for a reason. I am a huge collector of PL coinage, and I'm perfectly content knowing that some dates don't have PL coins. They just weren't made that way. I certainly don't want to see the standard diluted just so that we can have a complete "PL" collection. By your logic, we should ease the FBL standards so that the 53S isn't such a rarity. And we should ease the FB standards so that the 45 isn't such a rarity. I don't think you'll find many people in favor of that.

 

In answer to the original question - there is absolutely no need for a "Semi-PL" designation, in my opinion. The Star is awarded for coins which are semi-prooflike. I'm perfectly happy with this. I own several of these coins myself (such as the infamous Peace dollar, or Walker).

[physics-fan3.14]

It looks like NGC sometimes does PL and star as in this 1893 $10 Liberty gold coin: http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/eagles/1893-10-ms61-prooflike-ngc-ngc-census-25-55-pcgs-population-0-0-mintage-1-840-895-78725-/a/1122-9611.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

Looking through the range of MS61-63 prooflike coins can be challenging in terms of criteria.

 

Yes, the star can be applied to any coin. I've even seen DMPLs with a Star, for exceptional mirrors, strong cameo contrast, and amazing eye appeal (I think it was a $20 Liberty, but I don't remember the date).

 

Here is a Shield Nickel graded 65 * PL. The coin has fantastic eye appeal, and the obverse is DMPL (the reverse isn't as strong).

 

[david3142]

Jason, that is an exceptional shield nickel!

[World Colonial]

I am actually quite surprised to hear someone here say they want yet another designation, or semi-designation in this case. ... not everyone cares about PL, some collectors even find it unattractive and would stay away from PL coins. . . I think the less designations the 3PG's have the better as it would leave it up to the collector to look for/find what he/she is looking for independent of labels (making it more about the coin versus the label) and as far as I'm concerned that "hunt" is a very fun part of the process for many.

 

It should go in the direction of being more about the coin, less about the label, not the other way around.

 

There are two motives I see for adding this designation and the existing designations.

 

First, the TPG can use it to increase revenue though to my knowledge, all of the designations were created by collectors first except for the "+" and *.

 

Second, the most logical reason I can see for collectors adopting these practices is because the lopsided proportion of these coins are so common even in higher quality that there is little or even no challenge without them other than having the money.

 

This is especially true in the internet age but wasn't as much in the past. If I collected the most widely collected US series, I could literally complete most of them in "high quality" in one day or one week. The primary obstacle to completing them in one day wouldn't be the difficulty in finding the coins but the time required to perform enough internet searches or making the necessary phone calls.

 

Despite that most US collectors claim otherwise, there is virtually no difference between many coins with these designations and some or even many without them, the "near miss" candidate. There is also little noticeable difference between two proximate MS grades and we know this because TPG frequently assign a different grade with multiple submissions. By my standards, almost identical specimens exist by the dozens, hundreds, thousands or even tens or thousands.

 

With the "full strike" or "special; designation strike" designations, many (maybe most) collectors either cannot tell the difference at all or only with magnification. While I see almost no point to most of these designations, I find this one the most pointless.