ICG~Guess The Grade~'59-D Franklin:GRADE POSTED!!

JMOORE

With all the "ICG Sucks" posts today, I thought that I'd see what everyone thinks this ICG 1959-D Franklin graded at:

THE SPOTS/MARKS ON THE REVERSE ABOVE THE WORDS "HALF DOLLAR" ARE ON THE HOLDER, NOT THE COIN












Jim

Pic's done with an Epson 2450 Scanner. The coin really looks MUCH better than the scans.



<< <i>Edited to add close up of bell lines and face >>

LucyBop

Lots of hits on the obverse......... Always hard to tell from a scan....

I'll say ms62 and I think its FBL, though hard to see through the scan. Appears to be some rub on Franklins face... Thats my grade...

ICG grades this ms64fbl?

relayer

I can't tell from the scan if that's wear on the cheek, but if not MS60.

Or in ICG MS65 perhaps?

DCAMFranklin

I can't see the bell lines well enough to determine FBL. I'll grade the coin MS-63.

ajaan

AU58

MrKelso

MS63 FBL

There is a crack in the bell

gmarguli

I'd put it at MS61FBL, so I'll guess ICG graded it MS64FBL.

DHeath

MS-62, and looks like FBL.

Ronyahski

62 no FBL. Did you photogragh with halogen?

Placid

63fbl.

mnmcoin

64/65 FBL...very nice strike. I assume the luster is there, just not visible on the scan?

morris <><

jtryka

MS-62

JMOORE

Morris,

Yes, the coin has great luster that does not show up in the scan.

fantasiize

AU55 not FBL

fcloud

I with the AU crowd. I'm thinking 55 with an outside chance at 58.

LucyBop

I don't think there is enough rub on this coin to be AU, the strike for the 59 was a weak one as the master dies at this point in time had badly deteriorated.....

JMOORE

ttt

FC57Coins

From the pictures I'd say it's a low end MS64FBL in an ICG MS65FBL holder.

Frank

MacCoin

MS64 or better its hard to tell with just a scan.

Lakesammman

Man, I was thinking really low - better guess AU 55 so I don't stand out.....that coin has more ticks than a wild dog....

Edited before answer - Oh, ICG....guess it's a 64FBL.

Fairlaneman

Should be a 63 coin in anyones slab. FBL's, no clue.

Bought a PCGS 64 Franklin today that has about half the detail this coin has. After getting it home and looking at it with good light a Aw Crap was uttered.

Ken

wallstreetman

I second Lucys take!

DCAMFranklin

OK JMOORE, this has had plenty of time. What's out answer???

jdimmick

Let me take a shot!

I would grade the coin an MS-62 Non FBL (too many hits in prime focal areas for any higher), I think the bell lines are not quite solid and mark free enough to warrant an FBL desig in a PCGS holder
but;

ICG maybe gave it a 63FBL (icg seems to be a tad less restrictive on fbl, fh and fs status in a lot of cases, also runs a half a point to a point higher in mintstate grading typically??

JMOORE

ICG graded this MS64 FBL

The coin really does look much nicer than the scan.





Jim

DHeath

Jim,

Whether any of the posters of this thread admit it or not (myself included), we all developed holder bias the moment you pictured the coin in the slab. Maybe a better test would have been to put up the coin without a pic of the holder. I think there are many instances where a nice coin is ignored by the collector community simply because of the holder. Everyone slabs a few dogs (some more than others), and everyone occasionally slabs a nice coin. This coin certainly deserved more than a $150 bid. It would have done twice as much raw.

FC57Coins

<< <i>The coin really does look much nicer than the scan. >>



While Don's point is well taken that we do have some anti-ICG sentiments on the boards, this exercise goes to prove a couple of points. First of all, you can't grade from a picture - hence the above comment, second, every once in a while the second tier folks get something right.

Having said that, now I'll eat my own words by repeating what I've believed all along - there should be a unified code for grading coins - if this were the case, there would be little arguing about this matter. However, neither the market nor the folks that have their coins graded by companies other than PCGS are willing to go along with this - Why? Because they'd lose their shirts. This business reminds me a lot of the car business. You have your basic Yugos, and Ladas which spew and belch down the road... You have your Chevy's and Fords, and you have your BMW's and Mazerati's - well - we've chosen to ally ourselves with the latter

In the coin business everyone is out to make a quick buck. Knowledge is the key to this endeavor - If I get stuck with a coin that I buy because I'm too stupid to know what grade it is - then shame on me. It's not the grading companies fault really - only when we guide ourselves blindly by what the grader's say are we bound to get ourselves in trouble. - Goes back to the same old addage doesn't it? Buy the coin, not the holder.

Frank

LucyBop

I'll say this about ICG.... DCAMFranklin has said in more then one post that they are very strict in grading Proof Frankies...... That stuck in my head, while at the Tacoma Coin show I found some very nice ICG Frankies that I feel are DCAMS, these coins were graded pr65 to pr66 cams, which made a good buying oppertunity for me........

DCAMFranklin

Lucy, I just knew you were smart enough to take that information and pick up some real bargains! I'm glad that was far enough away that I don't feel robbed. If you really feel they will make DCAM, then send them to NGC and I bet they will come back 1 or 2 grades higher and UCAM. You'll see......

Lakesammman

Hey...I guessed correctly....do you need my shipping address to send it????

JMOORE

EVillageProwler

every once in a while the second tier folks get something right

This thread does not prove that... Most people did not feel that the coin should be a 64. I actually felt that the coin is a 62 (maybe 63, because you can't grade from a scan). It still may be that the proper grade for this coin is 64fbl, but this thread proved none of that...

EVP

andy007

I have to agree with EVP on this one also. Those are some serious hits on the portrait, I would say 63 max.

gemtone65

ICG has been known to give an extra point for eye appeal, which is difficult to judge on a scan of any white coin. But, technically, I feel strongly that this coin deserves no more than MS63.

gmarguli

Whether any of the posters of this thread admit it or not (myself included), we all developed holder bias the moment you pictured the coin in the slab.

I'm sorry, but this coin is awful as an MS64. I'd vomit if I paid MS64 money for a coin and that think arrived.

As for the coin looking better than it scanned, I can only guess that the scanner added a few dozen bagmarks.

I have SERIOUS doubts that this coin could have made MS64 at ACG.




This coin certainly deserved more than a $150 bid. It would have done twice as much raw.

I'd have paid $70 for it raw. That's what an AU 1921 Peace $1 is worth. And NOT, I don't think it is just weakly struck. I think it is wear.

JMOORE

For comparison purposes here are two examples of Franklins graded MS65 by NGC. The two on the left are the NGC coins and the one on the right is the ICG.





Now I admit that there are not as many hits on these, but if the ICG one deserves no more than a 63 then do these NGC coins deserve a 65???



Jim

gmarguli

Well, it's hard to say what the other coins deserve without seeing the entire coin. Also, are they the same dates?

The first coin looks OK. A few hits in the hair, but that is allowed. I don't care for #2 with the hit on the face, but it is small.

I've long said that Franklins are the most inconsistently graded classic coin by PCGS. The line between MS64/65 is a toss-up to them.