Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3218165, member: 46237&quot;]Assuming you believe that copper can be successfully dipped and straight grade at a higher color designation, sure.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>To me as well. If you look back to the post where I posted that example, I referred to it as &quot;heavily toned&quot; myself. I was using light toning in my last post for simplicity due to the argument that heavy toning may damage the surfaces without being able to tell until it is dipped. Having said that, it&#039;s not easy to photograph that coin and capture both the color and the reflectivity. Despite the heavy toning, the surfaces appear heavily mirrored in hand with a &quot;watery&quot; appearance as is common with the type when encountered as a PL.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I agree, however, I don&#039;t have a single example of an NGC or PCGS coin that has the PL designation that is toned - even light toning. I have examples that are strongly PL that I have submitted to NGC (and resubmitted for designation review) that have light toning (sometimes light peripheral toning) and none of them have gotten the designation. These are coins where every dealer I have shown the coin to has agreed that they are proof-like.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>No of course not. But the RD, RB, and BN designations describe the level of toning, and toning can of course change. That&#039;s why NGC has limits on their guarantee for those designations.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not disputing that they use this test or disputing the PL status of coins that pass the test. I&#039;m saying in some scenarios coins that are PL will fail the test (a false negative). I&#039;m betting there are coins that, if you saw them in hand, you would 100% agree are PL, but they would fail the test. I&#039;m advocating for subjectivity to be applied within reason, when coins fail the test for some reason other than not having appropriately mirrored surfaces.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, let&#039;s say you had a blast white coin with fully mirrored surfaces and no hairlines or surface conditions, but the surface of the coin is wavy (not a flat plane) - perhaps due to issues with the die state. The mirrors are deep, but you cannot read from them at the prescribed distance for the reflectivity test due to the varied angle of reflection. This coin fails the test, but wouldn&#039;t you agree it&#039;s a false negative?</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: Here are some examples of what I&#039;m talking about. I created a grouping of some of the coins I have that in hand appear fully proof-like, but did not get the designation. I have a lot of semi-PL coins, most of which I don&#039;t submit or only try once if it&#039;s sufficiently rare, but I haven&#039;t included any in this group. These are <i>all</i> heavily mirrored coins in hand.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://collectivecoin.com/Jaelus/ckrfzp0SkRnA4OPz0HEF" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://collectivecoin.com/Jaelus/ckrfzp0SkRnA4OPz0HEF" rel="nofollow">https://collectivecoin.com/Jaelus/ckrfzp0SkRnA4OPz0HEF</a></p><p><br /></p><p>1848E Ducat (Some light hairlines which account for the grade)</p><p>1889KB Forint (Light toning but the faces have that flat metallic look that some PLs have - where it looks like silver foil)</p><p>1892KB Forint (The surfaces are wavy/curved as per my example scenario above)</p><p>1904 Corona (Medium toning - if dipped it would get the PL designation without a doubt, but the original toning is especially lovely. The lack of designation on this coin is, to me, an arbitrary penalty on originality.)</p><p>1912KB Korona (Same look as the 1889KB Forint above)</p><p>1914 Corona (The example we have already discussed - same as the 1904 corona above)[/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