Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3216548, member: 112&quot;]Strictly my opinion of course, but once you consider the test/qualifications for the designation I wouldn&#039;t say it is arbitrary at all. And the test, or qualifications if one prefers that term, apply to all business strike coins regardless of country of origin. With the exception that I made note of in my post above.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m reasonably sure that you personally know what I&#039;m talking about when I refer to the test for PL and DPL/DMPL (DPL and DMPL are both the same thing), but for those who don&#039;t, for a coin to qualify for either designation reflectivity has to be physically measurable at given distances.</p><p><br /></p><p>As to what those distances are in today&#039;s world I&#039;m not really sure anymore as it depends on what you read and where you read it. In other words they vary a good bit. But years ago it was and always had been the same for both NGC and PCGS. PL required reflected readability at 4 to 6 inches, with or without frost, and DMPL required reflected readability at 8 to 12 inches with full frost on both sides. And this requirement applied to the entire coin, not just parts of it here and there. But in recent years I have read in various places where those requirements are 2-4 and 6-8. But as I said I don&#039;t know for sure which one they actually follow anymore.</p><p><br /></p><p>But regardless of what measurement is used, that reflectivity has to be present on the entire coin, or at least the vast majority of it, and uninterrupted. And toning, well toning interrupts the reflectivity, it simply makes it go away, as do patches of hairlines or light scratches and even concentrated patches of light contact marks. </p><p><br /></p><p>So if a coin is toned like the one you posted above, it does not qualify for the designation - because of the toning. In the toned areas the reflectivity simply isn&#039;t there.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Can&#039;t say that I disagree with you on that count. But as I see there are two possible and even probable explanations for the inconsistency. One would be the direct contradiction regarding frost that I pointed out above. One says it is required, one says it isn&#039;t. One group of graders may be referring to one qualification and another group of graders may be using the other. The second possible explanation that I am referring to may be the distance requirement. One group may be using a longer distance and the other a shorter distance. </p><p><br /></p><p>As I said these are only possibilities but I do think that one or the other of them is probable. Especially given what you relate, that they are often changing their minds.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding this coin specifically, my estimation would be it does not qualify for DPL because of the concentrated areas of light scratches, hairlines, and light contact marks, particularly on the obverse. They simply interrupt the refectivity too much. And the frost, at least in aggregate, appears to be broken too much on the bust. I can only assume that NGC was of the same opinion. But it is also possible that the issue of distance is playing a part as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>In support of my opinion on this I offer this as an example. I purchased this coin somewhere around 2003 so it was slabbed (NGC) at least that long ago. And granted the pictures are of poor quality but I think they show enough to be used as an example.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]836453[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]836454[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This was slabbed 63PL. And as you can see it has even fewer marks in the fields than your coin but roughly the same breaks in the frost in aggregate as yours. But even where the fields are clean the coin came no where near meeting the distance requirements for DPML, but they handily met those for PL.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I don&#039;t know but if you were to resubmit these coins of yours for review perhaps they would change their minds as they did with the PL coins. If they did then I would again suspect that one of the two reasons I gave above would be the explanation.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in