Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3217968, member: 46237&quot;]The disagreement here is fundamentally cultural. You view PL as something the coin <i>has</i>, rather than something the coin <i>is</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the US, these coins are looked at as business strikes with a special look. The <i>look</i> is something the coin <i>has</i>. Since it&#039;s something the coin <i>has</i> it can also be lost, meaning a PL coin can become not a PL coin later. The term proof-like itself defines this type of coin based on the <b><i>appearance</i></b>, and appearances can change.</p><p><br /></p><p>In German and Hungarian, however, the terms used for these coins translate as &quot;first strike&quot;, and &quot;polished dies&quot; respectively. Meaning, the coin <i>is</i> one of the first strikes from polished dies. Nothing you do to a coin can change what it <i>is</i>. These terms define this type of coin based on the <i><b>method of manufacture</b></i>, which cannot change later. I would assume this view is shared throughout broader Europe as well, though I don&#039;t know the terms or views of other European markets (perhaps someone else can chime in on this).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s different because PL is a distinct type of strike, not an appearance.</p><p><br /></p><p>What you&#039;re saying sounds no different to me than claiming an MS67 that becomes scuffed up and worn should no longer be considered a business strike because it <i>doesn&#039;t look like a freshly-struck business strike anymore</i>. As you know, a proof that is worn down to PR1 is still a proof, despite having lost all the characteristics of a proof. So it is the same way with an MS1PL/PL1. Of course, you might not be able to definitively prove it with either coin at that level of wear, but it still holds true.[/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