1953-S Franklin Half Dollar For Your Enjoyment (Large Pic/New Camera)

JMOORE

kieferscoins

MS-65?

A friend of mine got the same date in 64FBL and it cost several thousand.

Cameron Kiefer

ksteelheader

Nice pics! Nice coin also....Ken...

FC57Coins

Nice one Jim - great surfaces!! It almost looks like a 66 - Can you per chance take a closeup of the mint mark for me? I'd like to see something

Thanks

Frank

MSD61

What has you interested in the mint mark Frank? If I may ask? Could it have something to do with a "filled" S? As one who also collects Frankies I'd sure like to know

Micheál

JMOORE

Frank,

This is the best that I can do 'till I get my macro lens for the new camera.
(Photo Taken With This For Now)





Jim

FC57Coins

A while back I posted a couple of 1953S Frankies I have and Don Heath noticed that the placement of the mintmarks was noticeably different. Upon closer scrutiny, I found that the mintmarks on the two 53's that I have are not only placed differently, but it looks like two different punches were used, a small and large. The mint mark on Jim's coin, seems to conform to the mint mark that I've seen on several 53S coins, and more like the one on the right of my top picture. I've yet to see a 53S with the smaller mint mark. But that's not to say that it's rare or anything - it's just different - hopefully someday I'll have an opportunity to look at a number of 53S coins together and see if there's some sort of pattern.

pmh1nic

JMOORE

Very nice coin with claims to 66 status.

MSD61

So you like my '62 Franklin . Here's a close-up for you.

FC57Coins

Nice coin AND nice pic Paul!

FC57Coins

ttt - looks like there are a bunch of people up - maybe someone might have a comment on the mint mark thingy

LucyBop

I dunno what the deal is... I have a roll of uncirculated 53s's in front of me... The Mint marks are very blobby and small, unlike the bold and solid and bigger mintmark on my graded 53s's....

mnmcoin

That coin just goes to show how tought te 53 s Frankie is in FBL...it has a superb strike...looks 66 to me and yet no FBL.

morris <><

FC57Coins

Lucy - I'm thinking that maybe a mint mark punch for a quarter might have been accidentally used - it just looks noticeably different - do yours look the one on the picture on the top left?

LucyBop

<< <i>it has a superb strike >>



Its a nice coin but I disagree, this is a soft strike and one can see the weakness on the Lettering, this is always to place to look on a 53s for strength of strike...

Notice the bold and well struck letters on this 53s ms65fbl:

LucyBop

The reverse of a the 53s ms65fbl..... This is as good as a strike gets on a 53s....

LucyBop

another view of the 53s ms65fbl:

wallstreetman

My 53S PCGS MS65 comes pretty close to FBL.

greghansen

Holy Schnikee's Lucy! That 53-S FBL is hammered up big time. Wonderful, wonderful coin.

greghansen

Lettering, this is always to place to look on a 53s for strength of strike...

I'm trying to learn something here this morning over a cup of coffee. I've looked at Lucy's images of the 53-S FBL and non-FBL posted by Wallstreetman, concentrating on the lettering, while trying to apply Lucy's comments above. With the caveat that we're just working from photo's, I've convinced my self that on the 53-S FBL reverse, some letters (such as the outer loop of 'D', the 'O' and the upper outer loop of the 'R' in 'DOLLAR') show some rounding at the top, evidencing a very strong strike. The same spots on the 53-S non-FBL appear to be more 'flat' at those spots of the lettering with no evidence of 'rounding' at the tops of any letters.

Is this the type of thing your talking about, or is there some other aspect of the lettering that you focus on in trying to assess the strike of the 53-S. Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Edited to add: I guess another way of saying it, is the only difference I can tell is the non-FBL lettering appears to have a more 'shelf-like' appearance whereas on the FBL the lettering appears to have some rounding to it on the tops, suggesting the strike more fully brought it up. Am I on the right track or is it something else?????

FC57Coins

Greg:

Lucy's observation on the lettering may very well have some basis, as obviously the strength of the strike determines the flow of the metal into the recesses of the coin. The better the strike the more metal flows, and hence the more detail you get. This being said, I haven't seen anything in either the Ehrmantraut or the Thomaska book that substanciate this claim. In these books the main concern is enough pressure to make the bell lines, the Pass and Stow, and the three wisps of hair appear on the coin. If you look at the 53S FBL (now with a different owner) you can see that the Pass and Stow is well defined, and that the three wisps are about as defined as you're going to get them. Remember that the master die had been experiencing wear since 1951, so therefore some of the detail had been lost for a while by then.

Considering the fact that dies have a life of approximately 100,000 to 200,000 coins or there abouts, and that only less than 40-50 1953S Full Bell Line coins have survived, some possibilities come to mind as to how these coins might've been made. One possibility is that as the reverse dies were replaced, a precious few Full Bell Line coins were made each time which then over the years dwindled down due to circulation and hence only the few survivors found safe haven with collectors. Another possibility might have been that all the FBL coins came from one die, which either happened to be extra sharp, or was put on when the pressess had was set a few pounds higher than normal, to provide the needed pressure to make the bell lines appear.

Whatever happened, we'll likely never know. However, the fact remains that metal flow has to be accounted for in some manner in order for the coin to have been fully struck. Therefore, the more metal flow you have into the recesses of the coin, the better overall detail you're going to find.

Frank

FC57Coins

Following the same train of thought as Lucy started, I decided to image my 3 1953 halves to see how they looked side by side. As you can see, the 1953D in the middle, which is notorious for having a good strike, does indeed have bold letters, and the other features in the design are very well accentuated. This leads me to believe that it is definitely striking pressure that's at work here, as all the dies were made from a single master die. Compared to the 53P and the 53S, both of these show more rounded features. The 53P and D are MS65FBL's the 53S is an MS66.

greghansen

Frank,

Thank you for your thoughts. I have the Tomaska book, although I will admit to not having read it completely. I'll review it for his comments on strike.

Your thoughts on a tangent issue as to how the FBL coins managed to get made were interesting. I had another thought that I wonder if had been discussed. My thoughts were along the line of wondering what the 'tolerance' was for planchlets during that time frame. Is it possible that some planchlets were ever so slightly 'thincker' or perhaps convexed very slightly towards the center where the bell lines wound up being struck. We're talking apparently, about a very small percentage of coins struck, so it seems to me that unless there were some very strict control over planchlet quality control, a sufficient number of 'super planchlets' may have snuck through.

FC57Coins

Greg - that's certainly a possibility, but that would make all 53S FBL's slightly above norm weight - I would've thought someone might've picked up on something like that - but perhaps not ???

MadMonk

Great pics....I still love those Frankies!

greghansen

I don't know what the 'tolerance' was for planchlets during that time frame. Is it possible that some planchlets were ever so slightly 'thincker'

that would make all 53S FBL's slightly above norm weight - I would've thought someone might've picked up on something like that -

It would make some of them slightly above norm anyway. I'm not suggesting it as an exclusive explanation for all 53-S FBL's, just as a possible (unproved and un-disproved) explanation given the scarcity of the designation. Unless authenticity is an issue I'm not aware that the grading services would ever routinely weigh these coins, even those that met the FBL designation. I'd just point out that the standards for the coin are:

Weight = 193 grains = 12.50 grams

According to Breen's Encyclopedia the planchlet tolerances were as follows:

Weight = 192.9 grains plus or minus 4 grains = 12.50 grams plus or minus 0.26 grams

Accepting Breen's research as accurate this would equate to a full 2% of planchlet weight tolerance. If this additional weight were incorporated as 'thicker' planchlets you can see that some planchlets could weigh a full 2% more or up to 196.9 grains = 12.76 grams. Stated another way, some planchlets could be a full 2% 'thicker' and still be within tolerance. Strictly as a matter of population distribution, I would be willing to bet that most of the graded 53-S FBL's are above average in weight. I don't know what the standard 'thickness' of the planchlets are, but common sense tells you, they wouldn't have to be much thicker for near FBL to become FBL.

Not that it matters much for those who collect, I just think that for those who are interested in 'how' these coins came to be, or why there are so few, the 'Super Planchlet' notion offers a relatively easily understood reason why some of these coins could come to exist despite the use of reduced striking pressure.

Somebody get to work on disproving this theory.

emzee

On Q&A forum, David Hall was asked if all 53s FBL 50c were struck from one die pair - he said he didnt know answer but doubted it. I believe I can shed some light on this issue though I do not own any 53s FBL 50c.My hypotheses are based on experience with FS 5c of this era.

Undoubtedly, all dies manufactured in Philly in 1953 and sent to SF to produce 53s 50c showed FBL detail. Die technology in the 50s was not what it is today and dies were (relatively) hard to produce.With the demand to produce large volumes of coins from few dies, the mint did everything possible to extend die life, including continuing to manufacture coins from very worn dies. Late die state coins have a "mushy" appearance because the detail needed to produce a sharp coin was no longer present on the dies . It has been speculated here that coins were struck at lower pressure than usual- I doubt this is true. I believe the answer lies in die spacing. Press operator must set this parameter prior to striking a run of coins. In order to get the spacing of dies right, operator does trial strikes with wider spacing than needed in press run. He gradually brings dies closer together, looking at the coins produced until product is acceptable. The closer the die spacing, the shorter the die life. Hence, the (narrower) spacing of dies needed to manufacture fbl 50c was not achieved at SF in 1953 on a typical day, in an attempt to prolong life of dies. The die trial coins made to get the spacing right occasionally get into circulation and are desirable to error collectors.

How then might 53s fbl coins come to be manufactured? Perhaps on one or more runs, the press operator may have accidentally or purposely spaced the dies to produce such coins (contrary to mint policy). My experience with FS 5c of this era suggests 2 other possibilities. I sold a 1952 5c in 66fs a couple years ago. The coin was bright and had heavy die polish lines (repolishing) in the obverse and reverse fields strongly suggesting die clashing had occurred. I recently crossed another 1952 66fs 5c which had previously been in an ANACS holder. This one was fairly heavily toned but also exhibited heavy die polish in the fields. Though I no longer have the 2 coins to compare, I am virtually certain they were from the same dies. Die repolishing results in fields on dies that are lower in relation to the devices necessitating closer die spacing, hence FS.

The second reason a mint press operator might use closer die spacing is evident from my experience with 1953s FS 5c. Sometime in the late 80's, I came accross a roll of 1953s 5c which contained several fs or near fs coins. Most of the fs coins would not get the designation at PCGS due to planchet abrasions and bagmarks on the steps. One showed more than half of the 6th step! The finest of these was lustrous, totally free of marks, and had 5 clean steps . It was initially in an ANACS 65fs holder and now in a PCGS 64fs holder. Why was it not graded higher? These 53s 5c were struck from extraordainarily worn dies, perhaps the latest die state coins of any kind I have ever seen. Consequently, the letters and devices are spread out and for the most part, there is no detail at all in the devices. Detail of the steps remained in the dies to the very end because the steps are in the deepest part of (either) die and had not as yet actually been in contact with many planchets. I suspect that with the state of these dies, the press operator had to increase pressure and/or decrease die spacing in order to get anything resembling a Jefferson 5c from these dies, hence the step detail.

Michael

Dennis88

That's great information, Thanks!!!!

Dennis