Opinions - Would it go PL?
1 1

19 posts in this topic

I just got a few GSA Morgans, and this one I was debating on resubmitting to try for PL. The obverse without question. The pics don't show it well, but the fields are well mirrored, and you can see the frost on devices. The reverse is what I am debating on. The reverse is more mirrored that the pics appear, but not as glassy as the obverse.  Give me your opinion? I anticipate a lot of "no's" from the pics but I am curios. 

IMG_0003_1.JPG

IMG_0004_1.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 8:35 PM, Woods020 said:

I just got a few GSA Morgans, and this one I was debating on resubmitting to try for PL. The obverse without question. The pics don't show it well, but the fields are well mirrored, and you can see the frost on devices. The reverse is what I am debating on. The reverse is more mirrored that the pics appear, but not as glassy as the obverse.  Give me your opinion? I anticipate a lot of "no's" from the pics but I am curios. 

IMG_0003_1.JPG

IMG_0004_1.JPG

Without rotation motion, I hate making calls like this, but I fear the reverse may come up a little short of PL. Has any TPGS firm looked at it yet? You said resubmit. How do you feel about an NGC star?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 10:18 PM, VKurtB said:

Without rotation motion, I hate making calls like this, but I fear the reverse may come up a little short of PL. Has any TPGS firm looked at it yet? You said resubmit. How do you feel about an NGC star?

It’s graded by NGC now. The band around the GSA slab. It’s a 63, which I fully agree with. Just think it’s darn close to PL. A star would do as well. These GSA CCs invoke all kinds of hysteria. Anything added to that really drives people to have to have it. 
 

It doesn’t make matters easier that the reverse has the chalk like toning. Hard to see it fully through it. 

Edited by Woods020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 10:59 PM, Woods020 said:

It’s graded by NGC now. The band around the GSA slab. It’s a 63, which I fully agree with. Just think it’s darn close to PL. A star would do as well. These GSA CCs invoke all kinds of hysteria. Anything added to that really drives people to have to have it. 
 

It doesn’t make matters easier that the reverse has the chalk like toning. Hard to see it fully through it. 

Eye appeal wise, that’s one heck of a 63! I tend to not be a “nick picker” and prefer a nice overall look. This has it. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 4:09 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Give us a couple more pics of the reverse. Obverse appears to be there, but your pictures of the reverse don't show it. 

The key is how well, and how far, you can read text reflected in the reverse fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 4:46 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

I own well over a hundred PL coins. I know what the key is. 

I know you don’t need it, but others might. My remaining question is whether there still is a fixed number of inches standard, as there once was, or is it now subjective? Transparency about that would be nice. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 6:17 PM, VKurtB said:

I know you don’t need it, but others might. My remaining question is whether there still is a fixed number of inches standard, as there once was, or is it now subjective? Transparency about that would be nice. 

PCGS has clearly stated their requirements: 

https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-announcement-about-prooflike#:~:text=According to PCGS standards%2C a,striations may impede the reflectivity.

https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-adds-pl-and-dmpl-designations

 

NGC has never published their standard, and they have told me they never will. The last time I asked was 2018, so they may have changed their policy since then? 

Edited by physics-fan3.14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 8:57 AM, Coinbuf said:

From your photos I do not see it going PL, and as it is already graded the chance of a * added seems slight.

Agreed. I have no hopes for a star. I was hoping the reverse would maybe eek by. I already have it in the sell pile. No regrading 

 

On 2/23/2022 at 4:09 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Give us a couple more pics of the reverse. Obverse appears to be there, but your pictures of the reverse don't show it. 

I can get some after the weekend if I still have it. The reverse has the hazy toning that makes it difficult to discern how close it really is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 5:17 PM, VKurtB said:

I know you don’t need it, but others might. My remaining question is whether there still is a fixed number of inches standard, as there once was, or is it now subjective? Transparency about that would be nice. 

I would love to know the answer to that. In many cases I know definitively it is, or definitely not ever close. It’s the head scratchers I wish we had some standard for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 8:45 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

NGC has never published their standard, and they have told me they never will.

Well THAT’S disappointing. Must be like Supreme Court obscenity. “I know it when I see it.” And all my PL coins ARE NGC, too. All submitted raw by me, too. 
 

I know lots of guys here in this field are really in love with objective quantifiable standards. And I have some sympathy for that desire. But what 66 years of careful study in several areas has taught me is that objective standards often lack the nuance, the spaces between the spaces if you will. It leads to bizarre outcomes that stand athwart common sense and simple holistic appreciation of superior pieces. I’d rather avoid that trap, and in so doing, avoid having to explain an outcome that might be technically defensible, but often makes no sense. It just “feels wrong” all too often. 
 

I find subjectivity to be the lesser sin, at least if done well. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As described in prior threads, it is not difficult to make PL determination a consistent, repeatable process, free of subjective bias....  But does any TPG want to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 9:15 AM, RWB said:

As described in prior threads, it is not difficult to make PL determination a consistent, repeatable process, free of subjective bias....  But does any TPG want to do that?

Experience would suggest “no”. You probably think there’s no valid excuse or reason for that. I am willing to allow that there may be, and I’d be willing to hear it. “Because we say so” falls short. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1