Franklin Experts- I need your opinion..

Frankiefanatic · February 9, 2011 12:43PM

Please take a good look at the attached photos, and provide your opinion as to what you feel this Franklin would grade if submitted. Is it mint state or proof?

I do understand that it is very hard to tell what the coin would grade from a picture and that it needs to be in hand, etc. But please allow your mind to visualize the item- it is the same in hand as the photo looks.

Thanks- I appreciate all comments expert or not.

DIMEMAN · February 9, 2011 12:50PM

I'm not a Franklin expert at all, but to me based on other Franklins I have seen posted I would say 66.

And if the top 2 lines are all that count...it's FBL.

And not a proof.

JMHO

coinsarefun · February 9, 2011 12:52PM

Dang that's a nice image!!!!

And a great lookin' Frankie to boot

TomB · February 9, 2011 1:18PM

That's a proof coin, in my opinion.

JRocco · February 9, 2011 1:26PM

I am seeing a proof also.
Can't really grade this because I can't see the surfaces properly from the pics.

ProofArtworkonCircs · February 9, 2011 2:37PM

The fields don't look like mirror surfaces to me.

djdilliodon · February 9, 2011 2:54PM

She is a proof that is satiny is all. PF67

TexasNationals · February 9, 2011 3:04PM

PR-66

WoodenJefferson · February 9, 2011 4:52PM

A "tic free" Mint State from this year would be an awesome catch, so I'm thinking this is a proof Franklin which isn't a bad catch either. PR-67 if hairline free, if those are hairlines on the reverse on the bell...66.

Pretty blast white, Ricko Approved

lcoopie · February 9, 2011 8:55PM

no expert, but put me down for proof

SFBayArea · February 9, 2011 9:12PM

What's with the doubling of the letters?

ricko · February 9, 2011 10:11PM

Definitely RickO approved... would say not FBL though, 65/66.... no doubling.. that is lighting making it appear doubled. Cheers, RickO

Heywood · February 9, 2011 10:30PM

When I look at some of my proof Frankies, they seem to have a slightly more pronounced Rim,

and from your picture, it looks more like my proof specimens.

Been away from Coins for a bit, but still have my Frankies.

Looks P-66 to me

Frankiefanatic · February 9, 2011 10:33PM

Could a business planchet have made it through a set of Proof dies?

The bell lines are full and what appears to be a hairline between the upper/lower bell appears to be miniscule in hand.

Thanks for the opinions so far, keep them coming

I will reveal later this evening..

bushmaster8 · February 9, 2011 10:41PM

Looks to be anywhwere from PR64-PR-67.

kurtdog · February 9, 2011 10:54PM

I'm seeing a MS66, possibly a MS67. The swipe across the left side of the bell lines is the only thing I see that might be problematic in giving it the nod as FBL.

ModCrewman · February 9, 2011 11:17PM

I was thinking Mint State initially due to the lack of mirrored fields, but based upon the detail in the lettering and the texture of the bell, I'm changing to Proof. I'll say PR67 DCAM ...just kidding on the DCAM.

bushmaster8 · February 9, 2011 11:22PM

Hello!

I thought that looked familiar!

kurtdog · February 9, 2011 11:43PM

<< Hello!

I thought that looked familiar! >>

Yeah, that's the one. Let the record reflect at least I saw the problem with it going FBL.

TomB · February 10, 2011 2:36AM

<< 

<< Hello!

I thought that looked familiar! >>

Yeah, that's the one. Let the record reflect at least I saw the problem with it going FBL.

>>

Franklin proofs are not given the designation of FBL by PCGS or NGC, just as Merc proofs are not given the FB designation by either service.

WoodenJefferson · February 10, 2011 2:40AM

<< 

<< Hello!

I thought that looked familiar! >>

Yeah, that's the one. Let the record reflect at least I saw the problem with it going FBL.

>>

Since this is indeed a proof, the FBL designation is moot (in other words it's not used/allowed on proof Franklins)

PCcoins · February 10, 2011 2:42AM

My first impression was a business strike, then I realized if so you have a ms67FBL coin. So my mind was changed rather quickly. Proof!

kurtdog · February 10, 2011 3:33AM

Guys, the OP said the lines are full, I had the coin erroneously graded MS, and I said I see a problem giving those lines the nod as FBL. Better?

Heywood · February 10, 2011 5:45AM

Good to know being away from coins for a bit, I still have the eye.

Now in the Linked thread, I am surprised about the 58-D getting a 66FBL, The strike is weak, and there is significant chatter on the cheek and the crack of the bell.

Frankiefanatic · February 10, 2011 10:15AM

<< Hello!

I thought that looked familiar! >>

Well I won't deny that this IS the coin that I have posted.

I also asked the question: [Could a business planchet have made it through a set of Proof dies?]

and sadly there is no response to this, why?

We have seen in bushmaster8's sigline website of Franklin's that have the PL designation, but is there a possibility that a business or commerce planchet made it through a set of proof dies?

As many had said in the Windycity post when they first saw the coin- they labeled it a 66 66 FBL, even a 67, little did we realize that PCGS holdered it as a Proof 66, were we a bit shocked?

I have the coin in hand and from my somewhat meager collection of Franklin's- the planchet appears to be that set for a business strike, the cartwheel luster is all there, the fields are that of many business strikes that I have in the 50-53 range from a 63 to 66 in FBL as well as non.

I am willing to send this to one of our more astute experts (at my cost of course) to review, comment or offer up an opinion that can be submitted if my theory holds water. If my theory is wrong- so be it, I still like the item the way it is and COST has nothing to do with it. I'm looking at this as an unusual existence in what we all seem to believe as it is either proof or mint state- maybe someone 59 years ago wanted to experiment and this one slipped through the cracks.

So if Mr. Tomaska or anyone of this caliber would like to view this at my cost- please PM me- and I will be more than happy to discuss this with those willing.

It may not get the designation from PCGS but my gut says MS 67 FBL from proof dies- IOW- a nice mint error.

OK- swing away batters...your thoughts?

TomB · March 2, 2011 2:14PM

Here is another proof 1953 Franklin half with essentially no mirror brilliance at all, but rather a satiny texture that one might call similar to a business strike coin. However, I do not think it is all that similar to a business strike. This feature is also seen on proof 1950 and 1951 Franklin halves and Washington quarters, but not on all of them. The half shown here was struck with the same die pair as the half shown by the OP and this can be seen by the extensive die polish on the portrait and the circular die polish within the body of the Liberty Bell. This coin is in an old fatty NGC holder as PF67. Larger images are in the link.

Larger image.

coindudeonebay · March 2, 2011 11:39PM

<< The fields don't look like mirror surfaces to me. >>

Early 50's proofs, in later die states, resemble very much the properties of an MS coin. Definitely a proof.

frnklnlvr · May 10, 2011 9:24PM

<< 

<< The fields don't look like mirror surfaces to me. >>

Early 50's proofs, in later die states, resemble very much the properties of an MS coin. Definitely a proof. >>

I agree. The coin is definitely proof, IMO. You don't see business strikes that show PASS AND STOW so boldly. The lines on the cheek and bell are die polish, which is typical for early Franklin proofs.

SkyMan · May 11, 2011 8:17AM

Fun stuff. Originally I thought MS and then realized it was too high end and well struck for that.

SanctionII · May 11, 2011 8:56AM

I'll chime in also.

I have two 1950 proof Franklins that are Satin in appearance and blast white. I have also seen 1951 satin proof Franklins. Both dates look very similar to the pictured 1953 in the OP. I have not seen a 1952 or 1953 satin proof Franklin but it would not suprise me to learn such coins exist.

So when I first looked at the pictured 1953 half, I briefly thought MS67, but then reality caught up to me and said it has to be a proof. It is just too clean and well struck to be an MS coin. Now whether or not it is a business strike planchet that was struck [twice] with proof dies, who knows. It would surprise me very much to see any Franklin expert (or TPG) opine that the pictured coin is an MS coin and not a proof.

Simple as that.

Now I have also seen prooflike business strike Franklins that have been posted on the forums [including the recently posted 1949S]; and I have a prooflike 1959P Franklin. Prooflike MS Franklins are very attractive. Tonight I will take out the 1959P proof like Franklin and compare it to the two 1950 satin proof Franklins and see how they measure up against each other.

frnklnlvr · May 17, 2011 12:42AM

<< I'll chime in also.

I have two 1950 proof Franklins that are Satin in appearance and blast white. I have also seen 1951 satin proof Franklins. Both dates look very similar to the pictured 1953 in the OP. I have not seen a 1952 or 1953 satin proof Franklin but it would not suprise me to learn such coins exist.

So when I first looked at the pictured 1953 half, I briefly thought MS67, but then reality caught up to me and said it has to be a proof. It is just too clean and well struck to be an MS coin. Now whether or not it is a business strike planchet that was struck [twice] with proof dies, who knows. It would surprise me very much to see any Franklin expert (or TPG) opine that the pictured coin is an MS coin and not a proof.

Simple as that.

Now I have also seen prooflike business strike Franklins that have been posted on the forums [including the recently posted 1949S]; and I have a prooflike 1959P Franklin. Prooflike MS Franklins are very attractive. Tonight I will take out the 1959P proof like Franklin and compare it to the two 1950 satin proof Franklins and see how they measure up against each other. >>

I'd love to see your '59 proof-like if you have any pics to post! '59 PLs are definitely more rare than '49-S PLs.

Frankcoins · May 17, 2011 12:51AM

PR66

Frankcoins · May 17, 2011 12:57AM

When the Mint resumed proofs in 1950 after 8 years, the employees had apparently forgotten that the proof dies had to be repolished after every few hundred strikes, so many 1950-53 proofs resemble recent satin finish Uncirculated coins more than brilliant proofs.

AuroraBorealis · May 17, 2011 1:32AM

Cool info Frank...

AB

Franklin Experts- I need your opinion..

Comments

Leave a Comment