need help on FB designation on Roosevelt dimes

JRocco

I would like an interpretation of the FB designation on Roosevelt dimes. I know the lower bands are the problem bands, but is all that is required to make them FB is their separation from side to side, or is there a certain amount of rounding needed also? Help.. Here are 2 examples.
Here is a circulated 88P:
Here is a 48S MS:

darktone

PCGS requires the bottom horizontal bands to be full but NGC requires the vertical to be full as well. Myself I just use common sense when describing a full band coin. mike

darktone

Oh yeah- what peeking through under the mint mark on the 48-S? mike

FC57Coins

I see the 48S as a better candidate than the 88P in that the bottom bands of the 88P appear to have a slight weakness on the right hand side. I don't believe NGC would give the 88P (*if it was uncirculated) a Full Torch designation because of the hits on the vertical bands of the torch. I have seen a number of coins also that have lost the FT/FB designation because of weakness on the upper bands. Both sets have to be fully split - roundness on the bands is nice - but not necessary I don't believe.

fcloud

lind to pcgs description page

CarlWohlforth

That '48-S seems poorly struck. The left most leaf of the olive branch is almost completely missing. Or is that a specific characteristic of the '48-S dies?

FC57Coins

An old FT/FB thread from way back when

JRocco

Thanks for the help and thanks for that link. Mike---what can I say---you have an incredible eye...

FC57Coins

Mikey has been through like three zillion toned Roosies

sliderider

This reminds me of the debate over FSB Mercurys that Mark Feld enlightened us on earlier. That PCGS says the bottom one counts and NGC says they both count doesn't bode very well, IMO. Theres going to be a lot of confusion, as both grading services have their die hard adherents. I'd rather have a piece that has distinct seperations in both bands, and would gravitate towards the NGC slabbed ones. Think of it this way, if there are two identically graded coins sitting in the dealers display case, both MS67 FB or FT (full torch, as NGC calls it), and the PCGS piece has weak upper bands and the NGC piece has strong upper bands, which coin is really in better condition?? I think NGC has taken the lead in grading these by including the upper band in the FT designation. I think that over time people are going to start seeing that the NGC pieces in FT are actually nicer than the PCGS FB ones and begin attaching higher values to NGC slabs.

I snagged this one recently with a buy it now, and I'm surprised that it slipped under everyone's radar for the 11 or so hours that it was listed, because I know that NGC standards are higher than PCGS on Roosevelts, and look at what PCGS slabs are selling for in MS68FB on this piece. $700-$1000 last time I checked. The market is definitely going to turn around on these. I'm sure of it.

1996-W MS68 FT

jdimmick

I agree, and coming from a person who prefers PCGS coins, If I were assembling Roosy sets, I would choose the NGC FSB coins becuase they are adhering to a stricter standard. IE: better strike.

GoYankees

On the subject of PCGS FB Roosies, FYI...

Any Roosie that PCGS slabbed before they put the bar code in the front of their blue labels occurred before they started applying the FB designation. Last week I sent a MS67 2001-D dime that I had made after removing it from a UNC mint set. It came back regraded as MS68FB. If you come across these earlier slabbed dimes, check for full bands. There are very few 1990s in FB right now.

darktone

<< <i>Mike---what can I say---you have an incredible eye... >>

Thanks Frank was right I looked at a bunch of these and my eye is drawn like a magnate to the mint mark area. It sure looks like a repunched S. mike

jom

Rant On

This debate between the services about "what counts" as Full whatever just increases my distain for this designation non-sense. The coin is either full struck or it isn't and there are a whole bunch of in-betweens. Let the market decide what constitutes a full strike and not some TPG.

Rant Off



jom

JrGMan2004

Well, the fact that one TPG is stricter about it over another, makes a coin with the designator in their holder more desireable. Look at NGC with FBL on Franklins. Over at NGC, the bottom and top lines are looked at, but at PCGS, only the bottom lines are looked at. Which is more desirable to you in a sight unseen environment? A coin you know will be fully struck with fully struck up lines on top and bottom? Or a coin that could be fully struck up on the bottomlines, but have lots of weak spots in the upper lines?

sliderider

Very good example of what I am talking about. Thank you. The FBL Frankies are another very good indicator that NGC is overtaking PCGS in terms of toughness with grades. I have a bunch of MS Frankies and Roosies here that I was thinking of submitting to PCGS, but now I'm sending them over to NGC instead.

GoYankees

<< <i>Well, the fact that one TPG is stricter about it over another, makes a coin with the designator in their holder more desireable. Look at NGC with FBL on Franklins. Over at NGC, the bottom and top lines are looked at, but at PCGS, only the bottom lines are looked at. Which is more desirable to you in a sight unseen environment? A coin you know will be fully struck with fully struck up lines on top and bottom? Or a coin that could be fully struck up on the bottomlines, but have lots of weak spots in the upper lines? >>



Another viewpoint from an earlier thread...

Link