Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3219520, member: 46237&quot;][USER=112]@GDJMSP[/USER] one more point I&#039;ve been ruminating on. I&#039;m not saying the reflectivity test is a bad test. It <i>does</i> identify proof-like coins. However, like just about any test, there are coins that will fall on both ends as outliers. </p><p><br /></p><p>False positives - coins that pass the reflectivity test but are not proof-like will include <i>actual proofs</i> and other exceptions like the Canadian PLs. Those are considered to be PL and not MSPL since they were a separate product made to be PL but are not proofs. These false positives have to be <i>subjectively</i> removed by someone with knowledge of proof-like coins, because otherwise the test will erroneously indicate they are proof-like, when they are not.</p><p><br /></p><p>False negatives are on the other end - coins that are proof-like but fail the reflectivity test due to an optical abnormality with the surfaces, sometimes due to the method of manufacture. There is a category of Morgan dollars with atypical surfaces that are considered to be PL coins by experts, but would not pass the reflectivity test. Those would be included in this category as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is, the test is good, but it&#039;s not the be all end all you make it out to be. Outliers exist. This is a statistical reality. I have referenced some of them. It takes an knowledgeable person to apply the test, but then also realize when exceptions need to be made due to the limitations of the test.[/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