Q. David Bowers
Planchet Quality
As noted, planchet quality can be a consideration. Avoid planchets that have laminations (rifts, flakes, or crevices), which have black carbon streaks, which have parallel striations (caused by the drawing bench process in preparing the planchet strip), or which have other problems. In all instances and for all varieties of Morgan dollars, this is a hard and fast rule-there is no need to compromise here.
Putting It All Together
In summary, what you are seeking is an attractive, aesthetically appealing dollar, as well struck as possible, in the date range desired, and priced to be a good value (even if you can afford to spend a lot of money). Taking the list of Morgan dollar varieties, work from the commonest issues (1881-S, etc.) to the rarest (1893-S, etc.), passing by the common issues unless they are in exactly the grade you want. As your set nears completion and you only have a dozen or two left, then is the time to start making compromises as to grade level, quality of lustre and so on. However, don't do this until you have to.
Prooflikes and Proofs PL and DMPL Coins
Certain Morgan dollars were struck with prooflike (abbreviated PL by the grading services) surfaces. Originally, going back 20 or 30 years, a prooflike dollar in the numismatic trade meant a piece which had a mirror surface. Over a period of time, this deteriorated, so that today "prooflike" sometimes refers to a piece which has satiny lustre and which is prooflike only when the coin is held at an angle to the light and the bulb reflects directly on it. It is anything but a mirror.
Gradually, the terms Deep Prooflike (abbreviated DPL) and Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) evolved, with Deep Mirror Prooflike coming to mean a piece with mirrorlike surfaces-like a pool of silver or mercury. However, those terms also deteriorated, and now I see coins certified as "DMPL" which are what I would have called semi-prooflike years ago. To combat this, the ANACS grading service in 1991 announced a new grade, Ultra Deep Mirror Prooflike (UDM). Where all of this will end, heaven knows!
My recommendation concerning prooflike coins is to be careful, very careful. First of all, prooflike coins, even the most mirrorlike-tend to accentuate small marks on them. An MS-63 coin with mirrorlike surface often looks like it has been peppered with buckshot. By contrast, a business strike with frosty lustre will often hide such contact marks on the surface, but on a mirrorlike coin they are there for the entire world to see. With relatively few exceptions, for the same money I would prefer a lustrous MS-63 coin to an MS-63 PL or DMPL.
PL and DMPL MS-64 coins have the same problem-they are often beset with many nicks and marks. From an aesthetic viewpoint they are often very poor. For my money, once again I would usually rather have an MS-63 business strike with lustrous, frosty surfaces than an MS-64 DMPL coin.
At the MS-65 DMPL category you can often find beautiful pieces-coins which often look like Proofs. However, the rub to this is that such coins are often prohibitively expensive and, even if you did have the money might not be obtainable. Wayne Miller became famous in his endeavor to put together a set of prooflike coins, and by the time he called it quits, and he still did not have each and every variety, his set was valued well over a million dollars. Not many coin buyers are in this league! Also, the collecting opportunities open to Mr. Miller in the 1970s simply do not exist today. The supply of available coins is far more widely distributed.
If you are attracted to Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) coins I suggest that you buy one of two of the commoner ones-they still will not be inexpensive, however. These can be sprinkled among the Mint State pieces in your set. There are some varieties of Morgan dollars which are either unknown with DMPL surfaces or are so rare that just one or two exist. These include 1887/6-O, 1893, 1893-S, 1900-O/CC, 1902, and 1921-S.
As I mentioned earlier, in conditions less than MS-65, Deep Mirror Prooflike coins are often very unsatisfactory. Often, an MS-60 DMPL coin looks as if it had been run over by a bulldozer.
In an essay, "Prooflike Morgan Dollars: An In Depth Study," a chapter in John Highfill's book, The Comprehensive U.S. Silver Dollar Encyclopedia, Bruce Amspacher noted that the following factors can and do influence the value of a prooflike Morgan dollar. I have expanded Bruce Amspacher's commentary somewhat:
1. The number, size, and location of bagmarks is an important consideration. The more bagmarks a prooflike coin has, the less it is worth. Bagmarks on the cheek of Miss Liberty, or in' some other readily visible location, are more damaging than are bagmarks in hidden locations such as feather details of the eagle'swings.
2. Mirror surface, The depth of the mirror surfaces, the contrast to the devices, and the number of bagmarks on the surfaces are all important. In his work, The Morgan and Peace Dollar Textbook, Wayne Miller gave some excellent guidelines concerning the quality of mirror surfaces.
3. Contrast. The amount of contrast, ranging from none at all to slight to solid "white" cameo against mirror surface; the eye appeal or aesthetic value of the contrast; and the rarity of the given amount of contrast within a given variety each playa part. The greater the contrast, the more valuable the coin is.
4. Strike. Bruce Amspacher noted the following: "Prooflike dollars are not always fully struck or even sharply struck." My own preference is such that I would not pay much for a poorly struck prooflike coin, but aficionados of the series have their own ideas.
5. Rarity. Bruce Amspacher wrote that a cameo 'prooflike "wonder coin" 1884-CC might bring only three times the current market price, for prooflike coins of this particular issueare not great rarities, while a 1900 Morgan dollar in the same condition, a rarity by any standard, would easily bring eight times the bid price.
6. Other factors contributing to the value of a prooflike dollar include desirability, popularity of the date, affordability, past price records, demand, and even the situation in which the coin is sold.
To the preceding, I can add that it is my opinion that in general a prooflike branch mint coin is more desirable than a prooflike Philadelphia issue, for regular Proofs are available of Philadelphia coins. I could never figure out why someone would rather have, for example, an MS-65 DMPL 1879 dollar instead of a Proof-65 of the same date.
All of this indicates that evaluating the desirability of a prooflike dollar can be an art more than a science;
David Hall, in a circular sent to his clients in September 1992, suggested that his customers sell their prooflike dollars. He stated that in his opinion they were a bad investment at current levels. Of course, it is quite possible that at the same time, someone else might have recommended that his or her customers buy prooflike coins. Excerpts from the Hall commentary follow: