Full Band, torch, flame on Roosies? What should be the distinctions?

RegistryCoin

I'm not sure what a full "torch" or "flame" would signify. A strong "flame", or "torch" may not be very significant, but "FT" may be a good term, just to be distinguished from the merc.'s "FB" designation.
I know that a fully struck rev. on a roosie is not "a given". But where on the reverse, and, at what devices should we look?
If I remember discussions with RM on this matter, he said that the two pairs of horizontal bands needed to be clear and distinct, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, RM pointed out that the REV. LETTERING needs to be STRONG and CLEAR. Check your roosies for the differences.
A true fully struck roosie will have not only distinct bands, but must have very sharp reverse lettering.
I hope there will be some open discussion of the attributes of a pcgs "full strike" roosie.

CarlWohlforth

Thanks for that insight. I only have a few Rooseys but will check them again. I am waiting to see the "official" definition from PCGS.

Baley

an FT coin needs to be a fully struck coin in general. IF it has a full torch details including full split top and bottom bands, full vertical lines, full flame detail and full 2 part knob at base of torch, then it is Full Torch. If it has ALL those details but is less than average struck anywhere else on the coin, or has other defects, it probably won't make the designation. They will use at least some common sense. I expect PCGS will generally get it right. I'll find some FT roosies and some that aren't and put up some pics later. Usually, FT will indicate indicate Full Strike, just like FH, FBL, FSB, etc usually but not always indicate a full strike. Yes there will be exceptions and controversies. isn't that what makes coins so interesting to us? if it was easy those who know more wouldn't have an edge

RegistryCoin

I hope that there will be some discussion, so that a "full strike designation" doesn't ignore the most important component(s) of a fully struck coin.

Colorfulcoins

I went thru 28 different date/mint coins last night (the remains of an ex top-5 PCGS MS67+ Registry set) and found what I consider to be 3 FT coins, and 7 possible FT coins. No surprise, the coins I considered to be FT were 46D, 51D and 53D. What these 3 coins had in common were, as covered above, stong and distinctly seperated Top and Bottom bands w/o nicks or cuts, strong and distinct vertical lines in the torch, a well rounded and distinct bulb at the bottom of the torch, and solid and distinct definition of the flame on the torch itself.

The other 7 "possible" coins all had detractions as noted herein: marks or cust across otherwise full bottom or top bands, not fully rounded top or bottom bands, marks of cuts across the vertical lines, some weakness in the strike outside of the torch ( many of these possible coins were "S" mints which will probably turn out to be some of the more diffucult FT coins to find.....time will tell). These will most probably turn out to be wanna-be coins that just won't make it.

I think its quite interesting as Registrycoin suggests, to include the periphery lettering et al, - well know for being poorly struck on even otherwise well struck coins.

If I could take a good enough picture (and I can't), I'd would post a picture of the 53D as I believe it is FT and would provide a good sample from which more discussion could arise (and perhaps criticism of the coin's potential as FT). I too am hopefull that someone with a good camera or perhaps a microscope attached camera can take a clear picture of a coin that show these areas.

Regardless, it will be interesting to actually see what PCGS defines once they've told the rest of us what FT means to them.......

Baley

here's an image of a coin that is mostly FT, with a few little marks that do hurt it some:



I will make some pictures of better coins in a little while.

cladking

Nice looking dime Baley. What is it, about a '57?