Full Torch Designation on MS Roosevelt's??
Datentype
Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭
Can anybody confirm the information I heard about PCGS starting to designate "Full Torch" on Roosevelt dimes? If so, how will this effect the market? Will they ever have time to grade an invoice of mine again?
0
Comments
Mark
Here's the real deal anyway:
Has anybody seen a pcgs ms67 or 8 that is not FT anyway? A very high percentage of mine, maybe 90%++ never make super gem unless they are fully struck on both sides.
I think it will be good for the market on dimes and bring more collector's in to the marketplace for these coins. It will be a little hairy for awhile as people scramble to re-holder but when the dust settles values of sets will greatly increase in my opinion - possibly double in the next 2 years.
The way I read David Hall's announcement was that only coins currently in sets that were registered by 3-11 are eligible for the free review. But, I think your way of reading it--that any coin in a set registered by 3-11 is eligible for the free review--also seems correct. I think David Hall's announcement was slightly ambiguous.
However, I still think that buying a coin between now and when the "FT" designation is more common is somewhat risky. And, I also think that Mark (Datentype) is going to get (or maybe is getting or perhaps has gotten) the shaft because PCGS won't look at coins for FT until 4-1-03. So if his coins are graded before 4-1-03, it seems he will need to resubmit them to get the FT designation. That is NOT good because Mark is a good guy!
Mark R
Okay Mark, what do you want ? You name it and you got it!!!
would agree with you. 90% of my clad MS67's are FT and 100% of my clad MS68's are FT. Different
story for the silver 46-64 series. About 40% of my MS67 would go FT and that may be pushing it. I also
have 4 PC MS68 Roosies. Out of the four only 1 has a shot at the FT designation. Many of the MS68
graded Roosies were graded when times were a little looser and PC was giving 1/2 to 1 point for
color and eye appeal. We are going to see some huge price changes both up and down for MS67
and MS68 Silver Roosies. I don't think there will be much change in the clads except for a few of the
key dates.
The numbers of Roosy collectors was already skyrocketing even before this
new incentive. Many are collecting choice and gem examples and here the
incidence of FT will be much lower so the effect on prices potentially far great-
er.
Since PCGS made the announcement without having a standard available to publish, there is no way of knowing if your dime is FT or not.
Announcements Part 467: Full Torch Roosevelts
Mr. Hall's most recent press release as follows: Due to our graders aging eyesite and stain looking for all the FULL (WHATEVER) attribute and in addition the sky rocketing HMO medical cost of fitting these graders with a retractable 15x power lens to ensure proper attribution on DATENTYPE'S COINS the wait time is currently calculated at 3 months, 1 week, 4 days, and 6 hours (give or take a week). Thank you for you continued patience and support. Also we are currently and secretly testing a slower web server to match our grading times. THE MGMT
DH
Ken
My Washington Type B/C Set
on eye appeal and less focus on strike.
See. I knew I should have copied into MS Word and used spell check. That just goes to show your eyes are still strong and probably why you make all those nice coins
Ken
My Washington Type B/C Set
I believe that this grading standard should have been established "in the beginning." Now that PCGS has decided to "change course", the consequenses for collectors like me are drastic. My understanding is I will be able to have PCGS re-grade the coins in my Registry sets at no charge. This they should do. Good for me.
However, what about the other PCGS MS67 Rooseys I own? Not so good for me.
Should I be required to pay another grading fee because PCGS has changed their grading standards? I say NO!
Wouldn't it be nice if PCGS would decide to re-grade all of the MS Rooseys they have graded to date for FREE. Just dreaming!!.
I must say that the longer I collect coins, the more disrespect I have for the powers that be in the hobby.
Who What When Where will a collector like me know just exactly what "FULL TORCH means. Someone PLEASE tell me.
Daniel D. Biddle
Paris, KY.
Roosies. My sugestion to all who have any quantity of Roosevelts in NGC holders is to through them up on the NGC registry
now just in case NGC does decide to follow suit.
a few suggestions on your part to have some say in the decision. Every effort should be made to express your opinions that no Roosevelt dime with less then a full strike can receive the FT designation. An obverse criteria needs to be included in what constitutes a full torch. I don't collect the rooseys but I believe the hair detail over the ear and including the ear and cheek must be fully struck along with a full torch to warrant a FT designation. A clause should be written that any coin receiving the FT designation while the obverse is less then fully struck must be returned to PCGS so the pops and integrity of the program can be held in the highest standards setforth by the collectors. Don't stand by and allow coins with less then full strikes receive the FT designation like the other series that call for attributions.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Even more interesting is that Mercury dimes require FULL BANDS while Roosies appear to require something more encompassing than FULL BANDS - the entire "full torch". Forgot about the fact that serious Roosie collectors have collected them with FULL BANDS for years anyway. Now, the "curve ball" of "FULL TORCH".
From the standpoint of "dealing" these coins, I must confess, this is kind of neat - a great way to get higher prices from the collectors I suspect. As a collector of PCGS Roosies since the late 1980's - I have to agree with Danny (and Nick who feels "the pain" as well) -poor execution. BETWEEN MYSELF, NICK, DANNY, REGISTRYCOIN AND ONE OR TWO OTHERS HERE - PCGS HAD THE AUDIENCE (OF THE GREATEST PCGS ROOSIE COLLECTORS OF ALL TIME) TO COME UP WITH A DESIGNATION FOR ROOSIES WHICH ALL MIGHT HAVE SUPPORTED. Now, it will be jammed down my throat, whether I like it or not. I may like it, or I may not - but, to me, that is not the point. Wondercoin
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it should be remembered that change in all
things is inevitable. What we really need to ask ourselves is "is this change good for the hobby". No doubt the overwhelming response from the posters here
would be "yes". It will cause some short term pain and it will not be implemented in
a way that will please all parties, but in the long run, it will prove a very positive de-
velopement for Roosies, most collectors, and the hobby.
Jeesh
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
When reading your earlier response, I concluded that this move by PCGS came as a surprise to you. Considering the access you have to PCGS headquarters,
were you not aware that PCGS was in the process of making this change? This change had to be talked about by the powers that be at PCGS for some time before they decided to make it happen.
PCGS claims that this change came at the request of Roosey collectors.
I have three sets registered in the 1946-1964 category, PCGS never contacted me. I would like to know "who" they talked to about this change.
Did they ever consult with you about this change? Or were you unaware of
it, as the rest of us "collectors" were?
Daniel D. Biddle
Paris, KY.
A couple months ago, I was under the impression PCGS was considering a "Full Strike" designation for ALL coin series. As you know, from time to time over the past 4-5 years, I have suggested to BOTH grading companies to consider a FULL BAND designation for Roosies, to no avail. I got the impression that was not going to happen anytime soon at PCGS, especially because of the more global "FULL STRIKE" designation that was (I thought) under consideration. I actually personally like a "Full Strike" designation for the coin series - if implemented properly.
This "Full Flame" and then "Full Torch" designation came out of "left field" as far as I am concerned. I believe a prior generation of Roosie collectors may have found the concept interesting. Interestingly, in a meeting with Rick M. a while back, he explained to me how the reverse rim lettering was critical to him in giving out the super-grades to coins - no mention of a torch. Collectors today also look more towards the entire coin for strike (like the important reverse lettering) - essentially, why my FULL BAND concept never got adopted I would suspect.
Personally, my opinion is PCGS should either adopt a "FB" designation like they have for Mercury Dimes, cover this in a "Full Strike" designation for all series OR DO NOTHING.
My writings here are for the betterment of PCGS - not to attack them - it is always better to work with the ultra serious collectors and advanced students of Roosies than to dictate policy to them. I had the #1 set of MS Roosies in the 1999 Registry (building it since the 1980's) and have assisted the All-Time #1 Set of Roosies since then - Danny - yes, I too would have thought I might have been consulted on a revolutionary new concept in the way ALL OF US are going to be required to collect Roosies from now on
Wondercoin
These are my 2 feelings on the subject.
I am glad to see this, but a full torch? I have the #6 Modern 1965-date Roosevelt set and PCGS has never e-mailed or phoned regarding this matter. Why now? $$$? I feel for collectors such as Danny that are sitting on countless "extras" that are not in sets, unable to get free re-grades for this wonderful FT. I also agree to the fact that the powers that be had this up their sleeve for quite some time, and that YES they should have e-mailed EVERY SINGLE COLLECTOR AND/OR MAJOR SUBMITTER OF ROOSEVELT DIMES to let them know what was coming...AND to give us the opportunity (say until 4/1) to adjust our sets accordingly. Danny has a 1970 MS67 pop 1/0. In my estimate, this is the most difficult dime to obtain for the modern set. NOW...will this grade a Full Torch? Only PCGS knows at this point. Is it going to be possible to make a 100% FT? Several of these collectors have tens-of-thousands of dollars invested in these sets, including their extras!
I can bet my whole collection that when these sets are checked that not a single person will have a Full Torch set. I am at 86%, and after 4/1/03, I will probably, with any luck, be at 40% once again. I mean lets be realistic, all you merc goofs know how hard it is to obtain a FSB, right.
Not to forget $$$ again. I know this is a bad comparison, but it is a must. The 1953-S Franklin MS66 is worth about $300, but the lone MS66 F.B.L. is worth $69,000. What are they going to be worth. Personally I will not buy another non Full Torch Roosevelt dime if this is the case in point.
PCGS can fix this. They need to check every Roosevelt that comes back to see if they have a full torch, regardless if it is registered or not. They can grade it in the holder, and if it doesn't qualify, then send it back to the owner. If it does, then grade it for free. Certainly no one on this board asked for this.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
Wondercoin
It is a shame.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
sort of approached and was told what was going down and I kind of blew it off. I do know who the individual collectors
are that are behind this and in time everybody else will. I assume I was contacted because I was viewed as a strong
collector who had just beat them out of 4 PC 68 Roosies. Not difficult to figure out. Ask yourself a couple questions
Danny, Where are all the PC MS68 Roosies?. Any recent changes with Roosie registry sets maybe removed from the
Registry?. I'm sure you and I and Mitch and everyone else who has a stake in this will see some new sets Registered
with a lot of FT's in it. Give it some more time and they'll all be put up for sale. Hope your prepared to pay 10K for a
pop 1 MS68FT Roosie. Thats there Goal, IMHO
Paul B. Gunsallus
By the way, I have decided to update my description to state that I don't own a Full Torch.
Later, Paul.
As STOOGE mentioned, I am sitting on many "extras", YES I AM, HOW ABOUT
500+!!! I even have another complete set of 1946-1964 that is 100% MS67
that I haven't even registered with PCGS. It would be nice if I could register this set today, and be able to re-submitt it at a later date.
The way the process change is set up now, only the sets registered before March 11 will be considered for re-submission.
If PCGS is going to begin grading Rooseys in this manner, they should at least, give collectors like me more than 90 days to re-submitt their coins for this grading consideration. Heck, it will take me 30 days just to "Find" them in various bank vaults.
I believe that PCGS (maybe BJ) should contact the Registry participants personally, and at least, let us express our opinion about the time frame given for re-submissions, and the time frame for getting coins/sets registered to qualify for the "FREE" re-submission.
PLEASE PCGS. work with the "collectors" while this change is being made.
No doubt, the change will be made, however, lets make the transition less damaging to the true "collector".
Daniel D. Biddle
Paris, KY.
Just for the record, I was just as stunned as everyone else when the announcement was made, so that would mean that none of the top collectors of Registry Sets were consulted or were pushing the designation.
If you look through the archives here on the board, there are some intersting threads back in 2001 regarding FT Roosies, one talking about a group in the 70's calling themselves the Society of Full Torch Collectors, or something like that.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
1. See Registrycoin's thread on the Coin Forum - it sums up the situation perfectly. And, as I mentioned, the reverse lettering is often seen weak on many dates and an important aspect of the reverse of the dime.
2. I do believe PCGS is moving in the right direction recognizing Roosies as an important series.
3. I hope PCGS works with the various serious Roosie collectors and enthusiasts like myself to develop a workable designation we all can enjoy. I am confident they will.
Wondercoin
My wife's set is right under Paul’s set in the 1965-present and I really am not too upset about this ...yet. As I read DH's thread I thought of the collectors of silver dimes (that even though the metal is some what softer but struck with less force) are going to be where the biggest impact will be. Now the BS (I'm not talking about mint set coins) earlier years, say 1965 up to some in the 70's have some weak strikes but IMO due to the over use of the dies. There are some nice examples out there and there are not too many people looking at dimes (like what Wondercoin was talking about).
This is one thought I imagined would happen. The coins in existing sets would be evaluated for free (Of course) and the others might possible be handled as when PCGS did not designate Cam or Dcam on the earlier proofs. So when their policy changed the coin got submitted for review and for a nominal fee (I think $5.00) PCGS would reholder the coin with the new attribute/VAR.
I must say that the Roosevelt’s 1946-1964 are really undervalued (try and make just one MS67, I have and after my education I have very much respect for those that can). Creating this new designation will make a few collectors unhappy, but for the dime market I expect it to take off. Lets look at it another way. We are collectors and what do we like to do? Look at coins? DH is just trying to inject a little of that old time collector spirit and keep things up paced. You know add some spice.
Paul: I snagged the 1986-P MS67 from DLRC web site for $82.00 not bad for a pop 18/0 coin. It's not a FT and I think these Philly coins my be tough
Ken
My Washington Type B/C Set
I guess it will be a while before we can sort out the new standings but I'm definitely motivated to resubmit my sets-- fees or not.
This could be fun.
_____________________
My Other Hobby
And, as I mentioned, the reverse lettering is often seen weak on many dates and an important aspect of the reverse of the dime.
I'm not arguing this point. But, what ever happened to grading a coin based on it's individual merits? In another thread someone made the point that the lack of Full Bands was a strike issue and should be graded as such. Rather, FB is added to illustrate the (reverse) is fully struck.
What about Morgan Dollars? A few Morgan dollar dates come weakly struck too. Should we add special designations so those dates don't feel left out as well?
The main problem I see coming out of this, and any other grading change, is that it should be adopted as a grading standard by all grading services. Perhaps it's going to be and I'm not aware of it.
The thing is is that NO ONE KNOWS JUST HOW HARD it is to collect a modern set of Roosevelts! NO one for instance has a MS67 set of 1965-1998 set of MS Washington quarters.
Everyone I've spoken too seems to think that alot of money on a coin that is a few years old is a WASTE of loot! No one takes in consideration to the fact that even though that there are million gabillions of these that only a handful of these make a MS66/67 grade. These are called condition census rarities. It is hard to put a set of moderns together irregardless of WHAT coin it is.
PCGS needs to ask US....Case closed.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.