I think the terms "partial preterist" and "full preterist" are inadequate. We need another term. I propose "ecclesiastical preterist." The "ecclesiastical preterist" is one who admits there are no verses in the Bible that teach "The Second Coming" (that is, a "coming" in our future), but stills believes that doctrine. Or at least professes allegiance to that doctrine.
I would say that before David Chilton became (labeled himself) a "full preterist," he was an "ecclesiastical preterist." He acknowledged that there are no verses in the Bible that teach "the Second Coming" (so Biblically speaking, he was a "full preterist") but he professed loyalty to the doctrine of a future "coming" anyway because (as he told me) "Holy Mother the Church has taught that doctrine for the last 2,000 years." (I don't know how his doctrine of church authority changed after he decided to come clean as a "full preterist." He died before I could speak with him again.)
I see partial preterists (like Gary DeMar) moving one verse after another from the "future" category to the "AD 70" category. I think it's noteworthy when a "partial preterist" will move Daniel 12 from the "future" category to the "past" category. I suspect that the only thing that keeps some partial preterists from labeling themselves "full preterists" is that they are "ecclesiastical preterists," and still believe a doctrine that was invented by "the church." (They wouldn't say "invented," they would say the Holy Spirit "guided" the church.) They don't want to miss out on having the approval of "the church" and the creedalists. Nobody wants to be branded a "heretic."
More and more partial preterists are going to have to come clean and admit they are either "ecclesiastical preterists" (Bible + church) or "full preterists" (Bible only).