Do you have to pay to have a coin considered PL or DMPL? 0

[jimbob87]

[Mr.Bill347]

I would think that if it would have deserved that, it would have received that designation. I once sent in a Crusty old 1877 Morgan it came back s AU 55 Vam 2 1877/6 top 100.

that happened all in its own.

[Woods020]

Jimbo,

The proof-like designations are part of the grade and require no additional fee. 
 

Can you post a good pic of the reverse? There is some frosting on obverse of this coin, but the fields don’t appear to quite be up to proof like. Also both sides of the coin must be proof like to receive the designation, so I’m curious to see the reverse. 

[jimbob87]

Thank you. Maybe PL?

Edited December 21, 2021 by jimbob87

[jimbob87]

I also have a 1878 8TF that is a VAM 21 and I think PL also.

[Mohawk]

On 12/21/2021 at 12:23 PM, Woods020 said:

Jimbo,

The proof-like designations are part of the grade and require no additional fee. 
 

Can you post a good pic of the reverse? There is some frosting on obverse of this coin, but the fields don’t appear to quite be up to proof like. Also both sides of the coin must be proof like to receive the designation, so I’m curious to see the reverse. 

Woods is right on here....,frosting alone won't do it for a PL designation at NGC.  You need high reflectivity in the fields as well.  I've submitted my fair share of Mexican silver coins that had high degrees of frosting but normal fields over the years....and not one PL.  Stars, yes, but no PL.  Not one time.  

[jimbob87]

Thanks. I was hoping but I would like to have crossover on coin but not much sense if it doesn't change anything except that i have complete Morgans by date and would be nice to have all NGC. I used to live just north of the Sarasota Airport so I'm a little partial to Florida. I have others that complete my Peace Dollar date and mm from pcgs, icg, anacs and also raw. Almost 2 complete sets. The second one just needs the 27's and 28's. Ok. Thanks for your input. have a great Christmas and New Years. Jim 

[Coinbuf]

On 12/21/2021 at 10:04 AM, Mr.Bill347 said:

I would think that if it would have deserved that, it would have received that designation. I once sent in a Crusty old 1877 Morgan it came back s AU 55 Vam 2 1877/6 top 100.

that happened all in its own.

That must be one heck of a special Morgan dollar, considering that no Morgan dollars were struck with an 1877 date.  

 

@jimbob87 From your photos the 1879-O shows some luster bands in the fields and usually that will kill a PL designation.   Your 1878 8TF does not look PL in the least from your obv photo, NGC does recognize VAM-21 but whoever submitted it either did not pay the fee (it costs $15 extra for variety attribution) or NGC did not agree with the submitter on the VAM.   You can resubmit and pay the fee to have the variety on the label if you want, I'm not sure there is enough value in the VAM to warrant the cost of resubmitting but that is up to you.

[RWB]

On 12/21/2021 at 12:04 PM, Mr.Bill347 said:

I would think that if it would have deserved that, it would have received that designation. I once sent in a Crusty old 1877 Morgan it came back s AU 55 Vam 2 1877/6 top 100.

that happened all in its own.

Those 1877 Morgans are really tough to find with PL fields -- or any fields at all....

[VKurtB]

Whenever I think I have a PL coin in my submission, I write “PL?” in the part of the line where any variety is listed. One time it came back DMPL. Only one time.

Edited December 21, 2021 by VKurtB

[Woods020]

I agree. Not PL. The fields just aren’t there. 
 

I also agree the 8TF isn’t proof like in the least. You need a nice contrast between frosted fields and mirror like devices. I’ll post a link to a nice explanation and picture examples from our hosts. 
 

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6633/learn-grading-deep-prooflike/

 

[Woods020]

Also on the 8TF can you post a nice close up of Pluribus? Also a good, well focused pic of the obverse and reverse that fills the screen? Others may be able to but I can’t see it nearly well enough to give any feedback on VAM 21

 

[Mr.Bill347]

On 12/21/2021 at 2:43 PM, Coinbuf said:

That must be one heck of a special Morgan dollar, considering that no Morgan dollars were struck with an 1877 date.  

 

@jimbob87 From your photos the 1879-O shows some luster bands in the fields and usually that will kill a PL designation.   Your 1878 8TF does not look PL in the least from your obv photo, NGC does recognize VAM-21 but whoever submitted it either did not pay the fee (it costs $15 extra for variety attribution) or NGC did not agree with the submitter on the VAM.   You can resubmit and pay the fee to have the variety on the label if you want, I'm not sure there is enough value in the VAM to warrant the cost of resubmitting but that is up to you.

Actually, it is an 1887

but I forgot the grade not an AU but VF35.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mr.Bill347
Edit

[Mr.Bill347]

Yes I discovered that. Only by accident after it was graded.

On 12/21/2021 at 3:20 PM, RWB said:

Those 1877 Morgans are really tough to find with PL fields -- or any fields at all....

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Mr.Bill347

[Conder101]

On 12/21/2021 at 3:20 PM, RWB said:

Those 1877 Morgans are really tough to find with PL fields -- or any fields at all....

Yeah, they would have full proof fields

 

(OK, so it's a HALF dollar)

Edited December 22, 2021 by Conder101

[jimbob87]

    PL    from NGC from site listed above. Kinda looks like my 1879 O at top. Oh well. Guess just get one that's already graded PL.