Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3216732, member: 112&quot;]I understand your thinking Jaelus regarding the issue of toning but I can&#039;t say that I agree with it. Here&#039;s why. There&#039;s 2 reasons actually, one is this is one of those special designations that existed long before the TPGs came along. And from the very beginning the deciding factor/s were the reflectivity meeting the required distance/s and the frost requirements. And if the coin did not meet those requirements, for any reason, then it was deemed unworthy of the designation.</p><p><br /></p><p>The second reason would be that even though a coin may have been manufactured in such a way that it was at the time it was minted worthy of the special designation, but as time passed something, anything, happened to the coin so that it no longer met the requirements for the designation, then rather obviously it would no longer be worthy of the designation. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words things changed because the coin changed. And it doesn&#039;t matter if the change was the coin getting hairlines, contact marks, and or light scratches; or if it was the coin acquiring toning, anything that altered the coin so that it no longer passed the test then the coin could no longer be worthy of the designation. </p><p><br /></p><p>But lemme ask you one last thing. Do you agree or disagree - that if a coin has too many contact marks, hairlines, light scratches, or any combination of them so that it does not pass the reflectivity test and or meet the frost requirements - that the coin cannot be considered PL or DPL ? </p><p><br /></p><p>Now I don&#039;t want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that you will agree that the coin cannot be considered PL or DPL if that is the case. But if you do agree with that then how can toning be considered to be any different ? Both things change the coin, alter the coin, so that it does not pass the test. So it stands to reason that if one disqualifies the coin then other should disqualify it as well because they both do the same thing - they stop the coin from passing the test.</p><p><br /></p><p>Back in the very beginning when the special designation was first created that was the reasoning applied. If for any reason a coin failed the reflectivity test then it was not worthy. Personally, I believe that is valid reasoning. I mean I disagree with the TPGs about a lot of things, especially their grading, but I also do agree with a lot of what they do, and why, and this is one of them.[/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