Question for dime collectors.

eCoinquest

How come proof examples do not get the FB designation?

LindeDad

Multiple strikes on proofs. Strike quality is allways higher.

Stooge

<< <i>How come proof examples do not get the FB designation? >>

I've actually wondered that myself. I think LindeDad does a good job in answering this question. Also about 99.9% of all dimes would get the FB anyway.

Later, Paul.

eCoinquest

I guess that makes sense, thanks, but it still seems that it would help to have the designation on the pr coins too.

yellowjacket

PCGS would have to assign two coin ID numbers for each Proof date, as well as assign two pricing tiers and population reports for coins that are almost always full bands. Why bother?

Garrow

Colorfulcoins

I actually believe that ANACS does (or did) assign their designation to proofs.....at least, I do recall seeing them do so.

CarlWohlforth

There was some discussion on strike and 1950s Jefferson Nickels. In my experience it isn't an issue. Most examples are very well struck. I think the same goes for Roosies. I don't think a FB designation would add anything to the registry. All it would do is underline those few examples that didn't quite measure up to the full strike we expect of proofs.

My favorite proof Mercury dime wasn't full band. It was cameo though. It was a very unusual coin...

Steve27

This same question was asked in reference to FBLs on proof Franklin halves, and the "Strike quality is allways higher" statement certainly doesn't hold, since a large percent of proof Franklins don't have FBLs. Thus, my answer to your original question is that they already identify CAM/DCAM, and with FB, there would be too many combinations to consider.