Options
When grading Proof Franklin Half Dollars, the key is.....
 of 4-17-04 004.jpg)
UtahCoin
Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭✭✭
It is becoming abundantly clear that my skills at grading proof coins (primarily early 1950's) really need help. I have a number of 1c through 50c coins in PR65-68 for comparison, but I swear some of the 66's look better than some of the 68's. On the reverse of the Franklin's, I thought the "mushiness" of the small eagle would be an indicator of the grade, but that doesn't seem so. Are all proof Frankie's graded by the same criteria, or are allowances made for certain issues in particular years? Same goes for other denominations in the early 1950's? I'd like to hear some comments and suggestions.
Thanks,
Wes
Thanks,
Wes
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
0
Comments
In fact, I've hardly ever paid attention to strike details in evaluating a coin, really only when it comes down to comparing which of two coins in the same grade I'll keep for my set. Then I'd give the edge to the one with more well defined details.
I'm interested to hear what others think.
<< <i>Hairlines are the most important factor-- no question >>
I would agree with this, assuming reflectivity is the same for all coins. Many of the early 1950s proofs have poor reflectivity. If you find a 1950 half with deep mirrors, you've got something special even if it has a few hairlines.
<< <i>I've always been under the impression that strike softness/mushiness has very little to do with the grade on proof coins. I've always considered hairlines the #1 thing to be concerned with along with haze, spotting or unsightly toning.
In fact, I've hardly ever paid attention to strike details in evaluating a coin, really only when it comes down to comparing which of two coins in the same grade I'll keep for my set. Then I'd give the edge to the one with more well defined details.
I'm interested to hear what others think. >>
I would also add depth of mirrors/reflectivity to your list, especially from pre-1950 and even the very early 1950s.
Feel free to share a conflicting opinion if you disagree with me, but I don't see reflectivity and depth of fields having any influence on the numeric grade. Obviously, there's a connection to any CAM or DCAM designation, but not the numeric grade.
<< <i>I think you're straying off topic if we're starting to consider reflectivity and depth of fields. Those may be indicators of desirability, but I'd argue they don't have any influence on the numeric grade of the coin in question.
Feel free to share a conflicting opinion if you disagree with me, but I don't see reflectivity and depth of fields having any influence on the numeric grade. Obviously, there's a connection to any CAM or DCAM designation, but not the numeric grade. >>
I strongly disagree with you. Lack of reflectivity will limit the grade to 63 or 64.
1950 PR67
1950 PR 67
1951 PR67
1952 PR67
<< <i>I've always been under the impression that strike softness/mushiness has very little to do with the grade on proof coins. I've always considered hairlines the #1 thing to be concerned with along with haze, spotting or unsightly toning.
In fact, I've hardly ever paid attention to strike details in evaluating a coin, really only when it comes down to comparing which of two coins in the same grade I'll keep for my set. Then I'd give the edge to the one with more well defined details.
I'm interested to hear what others think. >>
+1
what he said.
it was and still is to some degree a steep hill for me to get used to.
.
As already stated it is all about the hairlines and other surface defects like strike thru's, glue spots, and the like.
That's just for the numeric grade. If you want to start talking about brilliant vs. cameo vs. deep cameo, that is a whole new thread.
The one and only Cameonut
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>I think you're straying off topic if we're starting to consider reflectivity and depth of fields. Those may be indicators of desirability, but I'd argue they don't have any influence on the numeric grade of the coin in question.
Feel free to share a conflicting opinion if you disagree with me, but I don't see reflectivity and depth of fields having any influence on the numeric grade. Obviously, there's a connection to any CAM or DCAM designation, but not the numeric grade. >>
When I posted that, I had in mind many 19th century proof coins. I do believe that these are penalized in the grading room if the mirrors are weak and/or compromised in anyway. If presented with a Franklin proof that had heavy toning that interfered with the mirrors, I do think it would and should affect the grade.
<< <i>These coins from CoinFacts are all 67's:
1950 PR67
1950 PR 67
1951 PR67
1952 PR67 >>
And they are accepted at those levels because the coins from the very early 1950 often came like that. In fact, a truly brilliant 1950 with deep mirrors would be a rarity and highly sought after. Show me something post 1953 like that, and I doubt it would come back higher than PF64.
<< <i>These coins from CoinFacts are all 67's:
1950 PR67
1950 PR 67
1951 PR67
1952 PR67 >>
That 2nd 1950 is a Quadrupled die. If the owner realized that and got it designated, he'd have a pop2.
<< <i>Hairlines are the most important factor-- no question >>
+1
U.S. Type Set