Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 3217348, member: 24314&quot;]<b><span style="color: #006633">GDJMSP</span></b>, posted: &quot;I&#039;m afraid we shall have to simply agree to disagree.</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660066">I&#039;d rather discuss this topic further as I see a contradiction in your post below:</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #006633"><b>GDJMSP</b></span> posted:&nbsp; &quot;No not at all, but it does depend on the situation, the specific coin in question in other words. A coin can be graded a 61 for a few different reasons, not just contact marks. <b><span style="color: #ff0000">AGREE </span></b>And the location of the <b><i><span style="color: #006633">contact marks</span></i></b> can also play a (<span style="color: #ff0000">big</span>) part, not only in determining the grade <b><span style="color: #ff0000">AGREE</span></b> but in <span style="color: #006633"><b><i>determining if the coin meets the PL requirements as well.&nbsp; </i></b></span><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0)">This is where we differ.&nbsp; </span></b><span style="color: #660066">IMO the number of marks on a coin, the number of scratches or hairlines - all PMD has nothing to do with the original reflectivity of the original mirror.&nbsp; Sure, we can PMD a coin enough to change its reflectivity - in fact, we can even fuff a coun&#039;s surface enough to remove it completely but those are the rare exceptions which only fog-up a very simple to understand the concept: <b>A PL is a PL!!&nbsp; </b>Just as you state below: &quot;The reflectivity test has been...&quot; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>Rather obviously we&#039;re not going to agree <span style="color: #000000">regarding</span><i><b><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 51)"> the reflectivity</span></b></i> <b><i><span style="color: #006666">test</span></i></b>, but to me, it&#039;s really simple. That test is, was, and always <b><i><span style="color: #006633">has been the primary factor when it comes to determining if a coin is PL or not.</span></i></b>&nbsp; <span style="color: #660066">And that is the contradiction. Except in rare cases where a surface is destroyed - the depth of the mirrors is the key factor. </span>The very purpose of the test was to remove the question of subjectivity from the equation - to make the determining factor something actually physically measurable. So to say that the test is flawed just because this coin or that coin does not pass the test due to its condition - to me that just doesn&#039;t make sense.&quot;[/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