Options
is it time for the 'FH' or 'FSL' designation for Walkers?
Doogy
Posts: 4,508 ✭
anyone think that the time has come for the two major TPGs to start a 'Full Hand' or 'Full Skirt Lines' designation on Walkers, or would that be opening a can of worms akin to the recent Frankie FBL messes?
thoughts?
Doug
thoughts?
Doug
0
Comments
edited to say: But then you'd have issues with chatty or subdued pieces that clearly have full "whatever" but should grade no more than 64-65 which brings me back to why I prefer designations.
<< <i>As I've said before, I think all the various "FX" designations should be merged into a simple "Full Strike" designation that could be applied to all coin series. >>
hmmm.....i like your idea of a general 'full strike' designation. although i also see Ziggy's viewpoint. not having a designation would allows the keen eyed to cherrypick fully struck coins for about the same price as a weaker one. that may change as the premium price for those labeled 'full strike' would enter the market.
<< <i>I am in favor of designations, but shouldn't the assigned technical grade indicate the degree of striking quality in addition to other qualitative grading characteristics? For example, a WLH in MS66 "should" most certainly have the a full hand just as a Jefferson nickel in MS67 "should" have full steps...you would think this, right? >>
this is my opinion, but i think that a full handed Walker would be a requirement for MS67, but optional (although many should have it) in MS66
<< <i>I am in favor of designations, but shouldn't the assigned technical grade indicate the degree of striking quality in addition to other qualitative grading characteristics? For example, a WLH in MS66 "should" most certainly have the a full hand just as a Jefferson nickel in MS67 "should" have full steps...you would think this, right? >>
Good point, and one I hadn't thought of.
If a coin is graded MS-67 and is NOT FH or FS or FBL, something is wrong, since a 67 should be hammered.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am in favor of designations, but shouldn't the assigned technical grade indicate the degree of striking quality in addition to other qualitative grading characteristics? For example, a WLH in MS66 "should" most certainly have the a full hand just as a Jefferson nickel in MS67 "should" have full steps...you would think this, right? >>
Good point, and one I hadn't thought of.
If a coin is graded MS-67 and is NOT FH or FS or FBL, something is wrong, since a 67 should be hammered. >>
I edited my original message and threw in the wrench: what about baggy, ticked up pieces that have full strikes but are not deserving of the high grade? Hence the importance of the designation for us picky collectors.
I really don't think that having an MS67 FH (Full Head), FH (Full Hand), FSL Full Skirt Lines), FB (Full Bust) would buy the owner anything since all those designations would be on any typical MS69 coin.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I edited my original message and threw in the wrench: what about baggy, ticked up pieces that have full strikes but are not deserving of the high grade? Hence the importance of the designation for us picky collectors. >>
But for mint state coins, the grade issued is always a composite based on various factors: strike, luster and 'marks' primary among them.
So if you're already factoring in strike to the grade, wouldn't you be (in a sense) "double counting" strike by giving it a special designation? Why not also "booming luster" or "minimal marks" designations as well?
Hope I didn't just open Pandora's Box with that one...
<< <i>I think the designations would be a waste on this particular coin since a bulk of them are 68 - 69's which require a full strike.
I really don't think that having an MS67 FH (Full Head), FH (Full Hand), FSL Full Skirt Lines), FB (Full Bust) would buy the owner anything since all those designations would be on any typical MS69 coin. >>
is there even more than a couple graded 69s between PCGS and NGC? i've never seen one
<< <i>
<< <i>I edited my original message and threw in the wrench: what about baggy, ticked up pieces that have full strikes but are not deserving of the high grade? Hence the importance of the designation for us picky collectors. >>
But for mint state coins, the grade issued is always a composite based on various factors: strike, luster and 'marks' primary among them.
So if you're already factoring in strike to the grade, wouldn't you be (in a sense) "double counting" strike by giving it a special designation? Why not also "booming luster" or "minimal marks" designations as well?
Hope I didn't just open Pandora's Box with that one...
like this one i posted yesterday:
strong stike, luster and fields, but baggy along Liberty's body: this one is PCGS MS67
A generally fully struck label will be no better in my opinion since you still have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. And if you expect all details to be full, then you'll eliminate 99% of the classic coins produced. That would not create enough supply to run a REG set. And if you required that of ALL of the current FB Mercs or FH SLQ's, most would be eliminated on shield rivets and other details....making the current FH buyers very unhappy and much poorer! This already happened to the Roosy dime collectors who had not all been buying fully detailed coins..... when the Full Torch thing was instituted.
For a fully struck Barber quarter I'd expect to have full radial stars,
perfectly defined claws and brow for starters. Now if one radial on one star was not perfectly split and rounded should that coin be rejected for full details? With this definition most proofs would qualify, but few MS coins.
roadrunner