Sure can, we see it all the time. It would be the Red or even Red Brown designations given to copper coins. But for them there is no special test they have to pass because the qualification is measurable by eye - 95% or more Red, the coin qualifies for Red. Less than than it doesn't. And for Red Brown, 5% or more has to be Red, less than that and it doesn't qualify. And both of those designations can change, literally go away, if the coin continues to tone - even if it's already slabbed. I don't know of any other special designation that actually utilizes a physically measurable test for the coin to qualify for that designation. PL is the only one. That's what makes it so special. I think I maybe need to clarify something here. Above you used the term lightly toned. Now to different people that term "lightly" is going to mean different things. Take the example you used in the beginning of this thread - To me, that coin is no where near being lightly toned, it is rather heavily toned. I mean the entire coin, both sides, are toned. Granted the rev is a a lighter toning than the obv, but the entire side is still toned. And I doubt that even any part of the rev would meet the reflectivity requirements. However, if a coin were what I would call lightly toned, and the majority of the coin would still meet and pass the reflectivity requirements, even if small parts of it did not, then that coin would be worthy of the PL designation. And I believe the TPGs see it that way too. In fact I've never heard of anybody who didn't see it that way. But, if the coin continues to tone, to the point that the majority of it no longer passes the test, then it is no longer PL. Same exact way it happens with the Red designation. Would you say copper coins should continue to be designated as Red even they are obviously no longer Red ? Ya see, this is what I've been saying all along. It is the reflectivity test itself that defines if a coin is PL or not. Without that test, there is no such thing as PL - as the designation was originally defined. Even way back then people saw coins that they just knew were special, coins that were worthy of a Special Designation. And to determine which ones were and which ones were not worthy of it - they came up with that test. Those that passed, got the designation, those didn't pass, for whatever reason, did not get the designation.
Assuming you believe that copper can be successfully dipped and straight grade at a higher color designation, sure. To me as well. If you look back to the post where I posted that example, I referred to it as "heavily toned" myself. I was using light toning in my last post for simplicity due to the argument that heavy toning may damage the surfaces without being able to tell until it is dipped. Having said that, it's not easy to photograph that coin and capture both the color and the reflectivity. Despite the heavy toning, the surfaces appear heavily mirrored in hand with a "watery" appearance as is common with the type when encountered as a PL. I agree, however, I don't have a single example of an NGC or PCGS coin that has the PL designation that is toned - even light toning. I have examples that are strongly PL that I have submitted to NGC (and resubmitted for designation review) that have light toning (sometimes light peripheral toning) and none of them have gotten the designation. These are coins where every dealer I have shown the coin to has agreed that they are proof-like. No of course not. But the RD, RB, and BN designations describe the level of toning, and toning can of course change. That's why NGC has limits on their guarantee for those designations. I'm not disputing that they use this test or disputing the PL status of coins that pass the test. I'm saying in some scenarios coins that are PL will fail the test (a false negative). I'm betting there are coins that, if you saw them in hand, you would 100% agree are PL, but they would fail the test. I'm advocating for subjectivity to be applied within reason, when coins fail the test for some reason other than not having appropriately mirrored surfaces. For example, let's say you had a blast white coin with fully mirrored surfaces and no hairlines or surface conditions, but the surface of the coin is wavy (not a flat plane) - perhaps due to issues with the die state. The mirrors are deep, but you cannot read from them at the prescribed distance for the reflectivity test due to the varied angle of reflection. This coin fails the test, but wouldn't you agree it's a false negative? Edit: Here are some examples of what I'm talking about. I created a grouping of some of the coins I have that in hand appear fully proof-like, but did not get the designation. I have a lot of semi-PL coins, most of which I don't submit or only try once if it's sufficiently rare, but I haven't included any in this group. These are all heavily mirrored coins in hand. https://collectivecoin.com/Jaelus/ckrfzp0SkRnA4OPz0HEF 1848E Ducat (Some light hairlines which account for the grade) 1889KB Forint (Light toning but the faces have that flat metallic look that some PLs have - where it looks like silver foil) 1892KB Forint (The surfaces are wavy/curved as per my example scenario above) 1904 Corona (Medium toning - if dipped it would get the PL designation without a doubt, but the original toning is especially lovely. The lack of designation on this coin is, to me, an arbitrary penalty on originality.) 1912KB Korona (Same look as the 1889KB Forint above) 1914 Corona (The example we have already discussed - same as the 1904 corona above)
So, I'd like to ask a question in this thread (not intending any snark or sarcasm, really would like to know) - when it comes to coins like the South African Prooflike issues of the 1940's - 1960's (in Krause there are Business Strikes, Prooflike, and Proof strikes) - how do you all classify them? Were the PL issues a special strike? Just early strikes of the Business Strike dies? If so, how do they have mintage figures in the reference guide? I've also asked a similar question over at the Coins & Canada site regarding Canadian Prooflike issues (pre-1960) - how does one tell the difference between a really nice business strike coin and a PL issue coin if it's not in the original set (and maybe the luster is a bit impaired due to age, PVC contamination, etc.) Very curious if someone knows the answer to this. (Note: I asked NGC this question once over at the Ask NGC board, because when you get a raw coin without the original gov't packaging, how do you tell? They just ignored my question.)
It not only can be done, it is done, and on a regular basis. And has been for many years. No, I wouldn't agree Jaelus. If a coin fails the test, for any reason, then it is simply not PL. I realize that. As I said before, I understand your thinking, I really do. I just happen to disagree with it. No, I wouldn't. I looked at all the coins in the link you posted, and in my opinion none of them would even come close to meeting the PL qualifications. And I don't believe that seeing the coins in hand would change my mind. I can't put it any more simply than this, if a coin fails the test for any reason, then it is not PL. If it passes the test, it is. On this my opinion will never change for one simple reason - it is because the test IS the deciding and defining factor. Without the test, there is no PL designation.
I can't really respond to this with any degree of confidence because I am not familiar with the coins you are referencing, at least I can't recall them off the top of my head. But, the South African coins for example, if Krause list them as you indicate with 3 distinct mintage types, Prooflike being one of them, and IF Krause is correct on this point, then as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, those coins would not be eligible for the PL designation, they would automatically be disqualified because they were an intentional special strike issue. If Krause is incorrect, then the test would be the deciding factor. In regard to the Canadian coins, if they were also a special strike issue then they too would automatically be disqualified. If they were not a special strike issue then the reflectivity test would be the deciding factor, pass and they are, fail and they aren't.
I feel sorry for all the numismatists that lived in the decades before the establishment of the poorly-defined reflectivity test, and who currently live outside the United States and do not use this test, for surely they have no way to identify prooflike coins. In the NSDR Journal Vol. VII No. 2, Robert R. Van Ryzin writes the following: "(The term proof-like is) troublesome to define. The American Numismatic Association made an attempt to do so in its Official ANA Grading Standard for United States Coins. The ANA said the term proof-like “describes an Uncirculated coin with a mirrorlike reflective surface but lacking the full characteristics of a proof.”" "There are no tricks or tests to determine what qualifies a coin for the sobriquet “proof-like.” You can waggle your finger two or three inches or more from the coin’s surface in an attempt to determine the depth of reflectivity or you can use a specially designed card that measures the depth of the mirror of a coin when the coin is balanced on edge. But the only reliable gauge is knowledge."
@GDJMSP one more point I've been ruminating on. I'm not saying the reflectivity test is a bad test. It does identify proof-like coins. However, like just about any test, there are coins that will fall on both ends as outliers. False positives - coins that pass the reflectivity test but are not proof-like will include actual proofs and other exceptions like the Canadian PLs. Those are considered to be PL and not MSPL since they were a separate product made to be PL but are not proofs. These false positives have to be subjectively removed by someone with knowledge of proof-like coins, because otherwise the test will erroneously indicate they are proof-like, when they are not. False negatives are on the other end - coins that are proof-like but fail the reflectivity test due to an optical abnormality with the surfaces, sometimes due to the method of manufacture. There is a category of Morgan dollars with atypical surfaces that are considered to be PL coins by experts, but would not pass the reflectivity test. Those would be included in this category as well. My point is, the test is good, but it's not the be all end all you make it out to be. Outliers exist. This is a statistical reality. I have referenced some of them. It takes an knowledgeable person to apply the test, but then also realize when exceptions need to be made due to the limitations of the test.
