*Slab pics*Now guess the grade? Frankie toning: AT or NT? Opinions and thoughts, please? Sorta like

pharmer

I thought this looked sorta like the toning on Bear's 62d ngc 66 star Franklin that some thought was definitely AT, one even saying he guaranteed it was fake. So, what's your opinion? And if you want, why? All opinions are sought, and those of Franklin experts are hoped for.

Hand held, obviously raw, under 1 Reveal 50w bulb, open 2x2. Thanks!





1/26/06 Again, my apologies in advance for my imaging deficiencies.

Russ

Looks AT to me. In fact, I'd guarantee that it would be bodybagged at PCGS.

Russ, NCNE

coinguy1

I wont give the guarantee that Russ did but it looks obviously AT to me, too.

MadMonk

I dont think it looks anything like the Franklin in the other thread.
And it does look questionable to me.

Jackrabbit

Count me in too... Looks AT all the way...

pharmer

Thanks for your opinions. I wonder if anyone else agrees?

LucyBop

i simply cannot make a decision based on that image...

JRocco

Hey pharmer, how are you? From those pics- the obverse looks like it could go either way based on the deepness of that purple coloring, but the reverse has that bad mix of colors, heavy on the purple and strong shade of blue, without those nice reds and greens. I could never say 100% from a pic, but I think that coin would not slab.

majorbigtime

What's that stuff around it?

Looks like a scene from The Blob!!

fountainheadgold

at imho

Myqqy

I would say AT.....

stman

Me thinks the reveal bulb is putting more of a red tint to the image. Put it this way.... If I were looking for one of these, I wouldn't be a buyer. When in doubt..... One should pass. I also have a feeling this coin is already slabbed. Just a guess/hunch.

pharmer

<< <i>Hey pharmer, how are you? From those pics- the obverse looks like it could go either way based on the deepness of that purple coloring, but the reverse has that bad mix of colors, heavy on the purple and strong shade of blue, without those nice reds and greens. I could never say 100% from a pic, but I think that coin would not slab. >>




Hey John. I agree, obverse looks possible, reverse is funky, but pretty.

Ronyahski

Turn the reverse to a severe angle and look at the field right alongside the upper portion of the bell and underneath the support. What do you see?

pharmer

OK, I did that. I see some toning. So, do you think it's AT or NT? Any other opinions?

pharmer

I was surprised when I got the email saying PCGS had slabbed and graded it, and wanted opinions on AT vs NT before I posted the slab, which is yet to arrive. So that I may learn something, what's the question about the portion of the reverse next to the bell below the support about?

Any guesses now on the grade?

Cladiator

Are you using a plastic baggy with coffee in it for a background? What ever it is, it's intriguing.

pharmer

ThanksBut enough about my coffee grounds, what grade did pcgs give it?

coinguy1

<< <i>Any guesses now on the grade? >>

Still AT and that PCGS was guilty of a mechanical error in assigning a grade.

Pharmer, on a more serious note, how accurate (or inaccurate), color-wise, do you feel your images are? Thanks.

Russ

PCGS graded that coin? That's the last time I guarantee anything.

If the image is accurate, it's still AT. I don't care whose holder it's in.

Russ, NCNE

Baley

the marks on Ben's eyebrow and coat are going to be grade limiting, looks FBL to me, I'll guess MS64FBL

knowing absolutely nothing about the coin's history, I'll refrain from stating anything in absolutes, but yes, the toning appears questionable.

pharmer

Is it just me, or is it getting hot in here? I feel flames a-cominReminds me of what the gynecologist said to my mom on the day I was born: "This is gonna get ugly"

Mark, this is my imaging set-up. It's just a 50w Reveal, since the lamp says not to exceed 60w. I look into the screen, move the 2x2 until the light's "corona" covers the coin, and click. You long-timers can surely see flaws in my devious scheme, but I'm a simply guy. What you see is what you get this way. Direct light, no glare because there's nothing to reflect, and you see more of the coin. The camera, in macro, is usually 3-5 inches away.

As some of you know, some jerk tried to kill a bst deal I had on a $525 Franklin, posting that my images did not look like my coins. Undeterred by never having seen one of my coins in hand, this Franklin expert tried and failed. He had, out of the blue a couple months earlier, asked to buy a Franklin that I had gotten grades on in the first thread I ever did on "I got grades," and I declined, truthfully saying I would have no idea what to charge. Guess that did not sit well. Anyway, unless you use this primitive method, I guess you'll never know if it results in accurate images.

I will post slabbed images as soon as I get it back. The email was Friday, so might be tomorrow. For slabbed coins, I do lay the slab down, but still hold the camera, and used three 50w Reveals. We'll see how I do.

But please people, guess what pcgs graded. It'll be loads of fun!

coinguy1

<< <i>But please people, guess what pcgs graded. It'll be loads of fun! >>

65FBL

coinfreak499

It's almost imposable to tell from the images. Based on what the image may be hiding it could be a 63FBL, it looks like the coin is a little washed out. I see a roll mark above Frankie's eye, hits on the top of his head, some hits parallel to his mouth just to the left of the rim, and a group of hits on the bell and to the left of it.

JRocco

Hey pharmer, my gut grades that coin a 64FBL, but I don't think you would have sent it in for that grade. So I will say they gave you the 65FBL label.

SUPERCARCOINS

.......



Russ , probable reason you gaurenteed a B.B was

you were basing your belief on the tweeked to death image

pharmer

That's funny. You're one of the experts who keeps saying rainbow toning, which I've defined as toning explained in rob790's classic thread (search on keywords myths, toning, I believe, or just his name as author), can be done by "doctors", but you still have not provided proof. I'll always be there to debunk your claims.

As to your charge here, I know nothing about toning, but you put it in terms of disproving a negative, a sort of when did you stop beating your wife scenario. I am literally dying to know how the toning you and your fellows travelers claim/guarantee is AT, like on Bear's 62d monster Frankie, is done, but you won't say. That's because, again, it can't be done. No one can disprove your claims, so you walk away happy. I will remain steadfast in asking for your proof. It can't be done, but suggesting that gives you an opening for casting aspersions on coins like Bear's, and their sellers. Probably just a coincidence that you deal in Franklins, right?

This coin was obtained as is from a board member in a group of Frankies soon after I came aboard. It's his decison to respond if he likes, but I posted several of the others in the group, and everyone said they were AT. As a result, he offered and I accepted 50% of my money back. This is the first one I've submitted.

Whatever you're talking about on my other coins, I'll take as a compliment. They are great, almost 100% from mint sets, and several board members have purchased them. I get compliments all the time, and great feedback.

You were the other person who pm'd when I first posted a submission result, and I turned you down also. You've been stalking me ever since, along with your buddies, and you are a nut case, as I told you. You sound jealous of my coins.

Bill

pharmer

<< <i>.......this "Jerk" sez this Franklin looks exactly like all the other coins you tone ,

and you seem to get them all in holders .

The coin i bought from you [ you know, the one i offered you 300$ for on the boards

,but ended up buying @150 off eBay a few weeks later after you tried

to get it to go 66 ( which it dosn't have a prayer of ever being ) ]

has nearly identicle colors/pattern.... just like dang near

ever freakin' coin you post an image of .

the tone you put on it lays on the surface , not at all deep like

your saturated pix showed.

And Russ , probable reason you gaurenteed a B.B was

you were basing your belief on the tweeked to death image >>

Ronyahski

<< <i>I was surprised when I got the email saying PCGS had slabbed and graded it, and wanted opinions on AT vs NT before I posted the slab, which is yet to arrive. So that I may learn something, what's the question about the portion of the reverse next to the bell below the support about?

Any guesses now on the grade? >>



I'll try to lay out all my thoughts when I saw your pics. The rim toning on the reverse looks natural enough, and the progressions of color also look very natural. They are really quite nice. Something that looks suspect is the break in color between the rim and the central devices, which likely triggered alot of opinions about the coin being AT. So you start thinking, how did the color get onto the center of the coin?

Franklins that have been ATd many times exhibit heavier toning in the center of the coin. I think when gas is applied or heat induced toning occurs, it tends to concentrate in the crevice of the field around the bell and under the support. When you look at the coin at an angle under indirect light, that area looks like it has lost its luster or looks hazy - looks like a build-up of layers on top of the coin, kind of like slopping shellac into the crevices of a piece of furniture. It's pretty easy to spot, and that is what I was wondering if you would spot.

I didn't include this point in the other thread about the 62-D that you mentioned, but that coin has this kind of build-up. With the other reasons I mentioned, and having stared at that coin in hand for 20 minutes, concluded it was AT.

Franklins that tone naturally with this toning look come from contact with something during storage, or exposure to elements in the air. Obviously it is not roll toned nor is it from a mint set. The obverse looks more like it was evenly exposed to something, air, or not in direct contact with a storage device. The reverse looks like it could have been in contact with something. I see faint pattern lines around E Pluribus Unum and again very lightly around the eagle, indicating that the reverse was in contact with something that may have caused the toning in the central devices. And if the toning between those points looks even, not built up in the crevices, that would indicate to me NT. So that's why I asked the question before offering my opinion.

Hope this helps. We all have opinions, and that is all that it is. Especially true when trying to discern from a picture whether a coin is AT or NT. An opinion is as good as the facts that are used, nothing like having the coin in hand.

mnmcoin

<< <i>i simply cannot make a decision based on that image... >>





mo <><

LucyBop

<< <i>You've been stalking me ever since, along with your buddies, and you are a nut case, as I told you. >>




who are these so-called buddies?

pharmer

Slabbed images, such as they are, in the first post.

Thanks everyone for playing along. I'm not going to conclude it's NT just because pcgs slabbed it, but I like it. Appreciate the excellent dissertation, Ronyahski. I learned a lot with this thread.

SUPERCARCOINS

......... look`s to be A.T

SUPERCARCOINS

<< <i>

<< <i>Any guesses now on the grade? >>

Still AT and that PCGS was guilty of a mechanical error in assigning a grade.

Pharmer, on a more serious note, how accurate (or inaccurate), color-wise, do you feel your images are? Thanks. >>



are you serious ? colorwise , my dear friend Farmer saturates his pix to the MAX !!

Tonedbuff

I love this thread! What a great example of the problem with NT versus AT and the fallibility of the system.
I'd have said from experience that it was AT.
And I still would... but who cares. It is holdered, and apperantly market acceptible by people who have looked at hundreds of thousands more coins than I.
No, I'm not saying they are right, just that it has been blessed by people we trust to bless these things.
Now, do I like it??? No, not so much.