Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3217935, member: 112&quot;]My thinking on it is simple - just because a coin <u>used to be</u> PL, and even when you can plainly see that, that doesn&#039;t necessarily mean <u>it still is</u>.</p><p><br /></p><p>To me it&#039;s kinda like this. When a coin was first struck it very well may have been an honest to god MS67 - something that is pretty unusual, special even in most cases. (Just like a coin being PL is special in most cases.)</p><p><br /></p><p>But over time due to mishandling, rough treatment, even excessive toning, that MS67 coin, that special coin, could easily be turned into, and often is turned into, an MS63 coin - nothing special at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>So why should it be any different with PL ?</p><p><br /></p><p>Everybody is entitled to their own opinions of course but that&#039;s how I see it, how I look at it.</p><p><br /></p><p>If toning, contact marks, hairlines, whatever, change the surface of a coin enough so that the majority of the surface of that coin no longer passes the reflectivity test - then that coin can no longer be considered to be PL. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, if a coin is toned so that it does not pass the reflectivity test, and then that coin is dipped, and after the dipping it DOES pass the past. Then I would readily agree with the PL or even DPL/DMPL designation. </p><p><br /></p><p>But with hairlines, contact marks, whatever - that can never happen because those things cannot be undone. Toning however can be undone, in some cases. In others, the toning, even if dipped away, may well have still changed the surface enough that the coin no longer passes the reflectivity test. And if it did, then the coin still isn&#039;t PL.[/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