Roosevelt FB Designation Results are in!

Colorfulcoins

Submitted 43 coins for designations - a mixture of "for sure" and "cross your fingers and hope" coins. Service took 12 business days and grades posted today in my Registry set. Out of the 43 coins, 35 received the FB designation including some better dates like a 1955P. Right now, the coins that are showing as pop-1's and or "blank - no pop" are: 47P, 48P, 50P, 55P, and 63D......no doubt this will quickly change but its a start. For more detail, see my "Colorfulcoins" and "More Colorfulcoins" Registry sets.

Cameo CC

Great results.

Todd

wondercoin

Craig: One could infer from your post that some of the "keep your fingers crossed" coins worked and that PCGS was somewhat "loose" with the designation? Could you address that as it relates to your specific batch of coins. Did you think PCGS was a bit loose with the designation on the batch?

Wondercoin

melikecoins

Nice score.
The pop report seems to be stuck right now so your report is helpfull
Thanks
Glen

Colorfulcoins

Mitch, good question. These were all coins I selected as I thought they could be FB coins. However, not actually having the luxury of seeing coins where PCGS has and has not designed coins, there's some uncertainity in what actually constitutes FB - in practice. What's more important to me - more so than the coins that received the designation - is seeing the coins that DID NOT get designated and trying to understand why they were not designed......marks across bands, weakness in torch, not 100% defined band seperation, seperation but not "full" seperation (not sure wht that means but.......). This is the "fun" part - learning about the more marginal coins and exactly what differentiates FB from 99% FB - based on PCGS standards.

Quite honestly, I was surprised that several of the coins that I sent in did not receive the designation - 55D and 62P come to mind immediately where I felt those were "lock" FB coins...........

melikecoins

How big of a glass did you use to check the bands?
Glen

onlyroosies

I've received about 15 coins back from PCGS so far and about the same from NGC. I can definitely say that NGC is a lot
tougher on the designation then PCGS. I did get a few FB's from PCGS that I thought were sliders. I got several full band
coins back from NGC that did not make it but would have at PCGS. I do feel that PCGS is more consistent as every coin
that didn't make it I agreed with. Not so at NGC and have already sent back several for a second look.

PCGS has just updated there pop report and a lot of FB's showed up. It looks like there will be plenty enough to go
around. Very few 1 pops, most dates with muliple examples. Several dates in double digits already. I had planned
to start aggressively bidding for some of the tougher dates but after seeing whats been made already I'll put that
plan on hold. I just sent in 83 Roosies yesterday that haven't even been looked at yet. I believe Danny B. has several
hundred that haven't been looked at yet either.

onlyroosies

quattrocoins

Great results, Craig.
Big Congrats!

Don

Full Bands and

mdwoods

What's more important to me - more so than the coins that received the designation - is seeing the coins that DID NOT get designated and trying to understand why they were not designed..

It would be interesting to see your thoughts on this once you have had a chance to study the coins a bit. Congrats on the good results. mdwoods

quarterjack

Craig, way to go! I had the chance to view an NGC Registry set of Roosevelts at a small show this past Sunday,Wooster Oh., and am holding an 1949 MS67 for the gentleman, i never realized how tough some of these are with F/B Designation. He'll be pleased as i think this one will make it also.

Cogratulations again!

Dave

DMWJR

My results are hitting my registry set, but my invoice has not posted.

So, all I can say is that now 25% of my complete 1946-1964 MS67 set went FB. I don't recall how many I submitted from the set (without my copy of the invoice), but I submitted just a few more than the ones that went FB. I will be better able to analyze it once I look at my invoice.


On the 1965-present set, which is a mixed bag of MS65-MS68, only 14 out of the 75 coins in the set went FB. That was very surprising to me. There are 19 other coins in the set which are MS68 coins, WHICH DID NOT GO FB!!!!!! Again, I want to see my invoice when it posts.

This leaves me with the final conclusion, that PCGS has totally thrown out the STRIKE of the coin as a factor of numerical grade. That is BS, and a deviation from acceptable grading standards.

Datentype

Doug, that really sucks. I hate to be negative as it is early on but I do not agree with the way they are grading the clads. I actually spoke to D. Hall before the deal was done and i was under the impression he was just "looking for a little line" problem is as Wondercoin pointed out early on that they do not come with a full line at the bottom even when they are as struck. I even signed off with my approval based on this "little line" concept . Now we're gonna see ms66 FB being worth the same or more as an ms67 for registry purposes and same with ms67fb being worth the same and possibly more than an ms68 non FB and I think it's gonna mess up the values more than I thought. I was rally expecting to see more lieniency and my thought right now is that an ms67fb is not worth the same as na ms68 coin period. Just because it has a full strike at the base should not be more important than the overall geminess of the coin. Did they go through this early on for other denominations? Probably. I'd be curious to hear other's thought on this.

DMWJR

My fear is that FB's are going to replace the current values of these coins, and the non-FB's are going to go to the bottom of the pile value wise. I'm afraid this is going to wind up weakening the Roosie market instead of strengthening it.

That is based on what I have seen FB's already selling on EBay for, and the dozen extras I put on EBay last week that were non-FB to test the market. They didn't sell worth a crap.

wondercoin

Datentype: Yes, I did point out that clad dimes simply do not strike up similar to silver dimes and that an exact standard employed for both would be problematic. Of course, at the time, IMHO, the proponents of the "FB" designation only saw $$$ signs dancing around anyway, so it really didn't matter what I had to say about that. Also, I have seen (what I feared) the top bands mess up otherwise perfect "FB" examples (e.g. a light mark on the top bands). Further, coins are now being priced much higher to collectors, which would have been offered far lower if the designation was never employed. So, while I realize the designation will be good for dealers, as I told the author of this thread before the designation became reality - as a collector, expect to pay through the nose for designated Roosies. And, for those of you who pushed for the designation - I hope your wallets are fat, because just wait to hear what top grade Roosies will be priced to you at

Wondercoin

Datentype

Doug: YEP! I am not impressed so far but I have a feeling it will work itself out in the long run. We will be able to see which ones are easy in gem FB and which ones are hard and it will balance out. here's the problem I have: Let's say that a 1982-p in ms65 FB becomes one of the toughies, I still have a tough time comparing it to an ms67 non-FB for that date difficulty and value wise and who wants a cruddy ms65 non-super gem coin because it has a little line at the bottom? As far as the Ebay sales, i could not find current or past sales data to back up your value findings.

cladking

I've always been a huge fan of strike. I like to see 100% of the original design on
the struck coin. This is a rarity since there is often some design missing from even a
new die, and all the detail from even well adjusted dies won't necessarily show up on
the struck coin. Fortunately there is a lot of correlation with geminess and quality of
strike for clads, so however one grades there will be some choice pieces in most collec-
tions.

This may or may not be a boon or a bust for any given group or individual, but it will at
least have the effect of increasing the importance of strike in valuations for dimes. If
it further has the effect of suppressing valuations for some highly desirable dimes this
will present an opportunity to those who can see this desirability. For most people it is
likely to prove pretty much a wash while rewarding those who took the care to actually
seek out finer examples. It may help dealers to the extent that it should serve to increase
the total value of all the roosies they sell through sheer volume if not higher prices.

Things are getting interesting. Bring it on!

Colorfulcoins

Mitch, nice "I told you so."

Without doubt, the Rosy market is in flux and will continue to be so for a while. There will be and already are optimistic sellers pricing coins based on perceived rarity which may or may not be borne out in the months to come. I have already heard of FB coins with asking prices in the $800 range - which might be a great deal or highway robbery! Best bet, in my opinion, is for the FB Rosy players to sit tight and wait.

First, all the people like myself that submitted for the $5 designation "special, will most probably have grades awarded within the next 2 weeks - that will change the pops. Second, those lucky Registry set participants that had sets (more like specific coins) as of 3/11 will be submitting their sets/coins prior to June 30, 2003 for the FREE designation (if I remember those dates correctly). Given a 15 business day turn around, the great majority of those historically "holding" potential FB coins will have submitted and received grades by the latter part of July.......and with 500+ coins, just think what D Biddle's coins themselves can do to the pops! By end of July, we should see a prety good sampling of FB pop's from the guys (and gals) that have set them aside for years..... Of course, that is only a partial measure of degree of difficulty - if a collector, for example, believed that the 1955S was a terribly difficult coin in FB and had accumulated a small hoard of say 20 FB coins, all of which were submitted and so designated, it might make the pops appear to show that coin isn't so difficult.....however, the rate of adding coins over the balance of this year (and beyond) will more accurately paint the picture.

Is there a 1945P FB equivilent in the Rosy series? Time will tell. I for one, will continue to buy and add to my set but I will not be the one spending $1000 for a MS67FB......unless its colorfully toned <grin>.

And finally, we've started to see a few MS68FB coins......Mitch, when's the "real MS68 hoard" going to be submitted - or has it already? Is the collector interested in getting the coins designed - the culminution of both yours and other owners years of effort?

wondercoin

Craig: A Roosie collector we both love and respect recently offered $400 for a certain "FB" dated Roosie, as he truly believed that was a "fair price" for the coin. The offer was rejected and the following week I was shown the coin and I offered $650 (which, as far as I was concerned was "all the money") and I was rejected (after a day of deliberation, as my price was really fair IMHO). Before the designation change, this coin would have changed hands around $300. So, it is not that "I told you so" - it is the simple fact that Roosie collectors had better get their fat wallets out, as the owners of the "low pop" FB coins are ready to "take no prisoners". Do you find my comment to be unfair or off the mark? If so, who are the generous sellers?

The assistance I may render collectors with "upgrading" their coins is private and I will only discuss it where the collector says it is fine to do so. I can tell you about myself though - I have around 100 Roosies in for "FB" designation, mostly silver coins and spanning most of the different dates.

Wondercoin.

DMWJR

I think in the long run, the prices are going to settle down, and the FB prices are going to assume the prices of the current supergrades. The non FB's will be cheaper than they have been historically. So, if you don't care about the FB, then you will be able to pick up supergems at a reasonable price. But for those playing the game, the stakes are going to be higher for a while.

I can't see shelling out a premium right now for FB's until a fair number of the current slabs have been cherried. I guess I'm content with my set for now, as I still have the same coins I started with before the FB designation.

I guess I didn't fully understand the "line" business when it came up the first time, but I do now -- the hard way as usual. Are there any easy lessons in this business???

DMWJR

EBay Transactions over the last few weeks on FB's:

2001-P PCGS MS 66 FB Item # 3022596199 sold for $3.00 by Wayne Herndon
1996-W PCGS MS 68 FB Item # 3020681515 sold for $301.00
2002-D PCGS MS 67 FB Item # 3021351883 sold for $21.00
1952-P NGC MS67 FB Item # 3020120951 Listed for $150.00 -- did not sell by CameoCC
1946-S NGC MS67 FB Item # 3020120779 Listed for $100.00 -- did not sell by CameoCC

Colorfulcoins

".....generous sellers". I think that's an oxymoron. <g> No offense but but there is a profit motive to consider.......

As far as the Rosy market, I don't belive its near as developed as the Merc market where "fat wallets" are far more common. Will the fat wallets invade the Rosy series........don't know.......perhaps the small but dedicated group of MS68 collectors will be the future of the Rosy series. Certainly there was a time where the MS67's were tough whereas the MS68's are tough today. But there is a ray of light in that PCGS has made some recent MS68's - the 46S and 50D of a few months ago and the more recent 48S FB at CSNS (?). Fat wallets love the ms68'S but will fat wallets pay for MS67FB coins? Time will tell........

Mitch, hope your FB designation submission returns good results - will you share your results on the Board when you get them?

wondercoin

Craig: Sure I will share the results.

Personally, I'll probably just build -1- MS67FB set and sell off all doubles.

Wondercoin

onlyroosies

After seeing the most recent pop reports I was a little shocked as to how fast they grew. I did not expect to
see so many FB's made so quickly, now I'm talking about the silvers and not the clads. Though I have a clad
set registered I'm not so well versed with the clads and am very content at this time completing the set with
non FB coins. The silvers are a different story, I would like the highest possible grade in FB I can afford, afford
means to me, value. If I don't feel the value is there I'll pass (as much as I hate to) and right now with PCGS
cranking out the 68FB's (and yes 3 in the last month is cranking them out) I will now take a wait and see
attitude. There have already been multiples of what I thought were going to be tough dates made in 67FB.

Craig has it pegged perfectly. The bulk of the results will be in by mid July and I for one will be on the sidelines
as far as paying large premiums for FB Roosies until I can get a better feel for there value.

Mitch, The collector your talking about where you upped his bid for the 49 FB. It is possible he already has
that date in FB and just didn't want to pay up for a duplicate at this time. Apparently Someone felt it was
worth more then $650. Probably made the bid before the current pop report was updated. Case in point
why I'm "now" willing to wait.

Nick

Colorfulcoins

Mitch, given your 100 coin FB submission, you could end up selling 50+ duplicates.....any pretty toned beauties in that lot, keep me in mind (FB or not).

wondercoin

Craig: I certainly will.

Nick: Are you saying the dime is worth substantially more than $650 for a 67FB? I wasn't clear on what you were saying.

Wondercoin

DMWJR

Just an update after I got home and checked my sheets.

1946-1964 - 48 coins - 14 sumbitted, 12 made FB
1965-pres - 75 coins - 32 submitted, 14 made FB

I used the same standard on silver and clad, and ONLY submitted the coins I thought should be FB.
On the silver submittals -- I agreed with PCGS 86% of the time.
On the clad submittals -- I agreed with PCGS 44% of the time.

I sent in an extra batch at $5.00 per, which I don't have back yet.

I'm going to reserve future statements about what they are doing until I get the coins back and can try to figure out "WHY" they did not give them FB's. You would think that after my success in predicting an FB on the silver dimes, I would be able to predict the clads. That is apparently not the case.

I hope you don't mind me sharing my frustration here on the boards.

dbldie55

Mitch says:

<< <i>Datentype: Yes, I did point out that clad dimes simply do not strike up similar to silver dimes and that an exact standard employed for both would be problematic. >>



After which Doug says:

<< <i>You would think that after my success in predicting an FB on the silver dimes, I would be able to predict the clads. That is apparently not the case. >>




Sounds like you guys are in total agreement.