FB designation for the Roosevelt series leaves me confused

Comments

• LanceNewmanOCC Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 9:30AM

  .
  here is a start. the search feature is fantastic.
  .

  <--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -

  0
• OldEastside Posts: 4,602 ✭✭✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 9:45AM edited February 5, 2017 10:01AM

  PCGS youtube FH,FS & FB designations video, Starts at 5:01 for Roosevelts
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=ANs5TLZYH7w&feature=youtv.be&t=Zm55s

  Steve

  Promote the Hobby

  0
• georgiacop50 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 9:58AM

  As with any of the strike designations, you are at the mercy of the particular grader(s). Despite a so-called "standard" the graders all have subtle differences of opinion.

  Another thing is there seem to be different standards in place for different dates (unfortunately). Luckily, the standard for 1946- 1964 is pretty consistent. But 1965 to about 1976 the standard is generally much more loose, especially for 1968 &1969.

  Then there are the truly modern Roosies, where they are going to be requiring a hammered set of lowers like you will see on 2000- present dates.

  2
• newcollect Posts: 205 ✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 1:27PM

  @georgiacop50 said:
  As with any of the strike designations, you are at the mercy of the particular grader(s). Despite a so-called "standard" the graders all have subtle differences of opinion.

  Another thing is there seem to be different standards in place for different dates (unfortunately). Luckily, the standard for 1946- 1964 is pretty consistent. But 1965 to about 1976 the standard is generally much more loose, especially for 1968 &1969.

  Then there are the truly modern Roosies, where they are going to be requiring a hammered set of lowers like you will see on 2000- present dates.
  

  You unconfused me all this seems logical, Thanx

  0
• roadrunner Posts: 28,322 ✭✭✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 2:19PM

  @newcollect said:
  I have no problems with the merc's,=.....Thanx as always! XMAN

  You might to reassess the Mercs. They aren't any clearer than the Roosies. Many variations, even by date.

  Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold

  0
• newcollect Posts: 205 ✭✭✭

  February 5, 2017 3:10PM edited February 5, 2017 3:11PM

  @roadrunner said:

  @newcollect said:
  I have no problems with the merc's,=.....Thanx as always! XMAN

  You might to reassess the Mercs. They aren't any clearer than the Roosies. Many variations, even by date.

  Good to know as I have a full roll of 1945 BU'S and some were really close IMO

  0
• ricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

  February 6, 2017 5:10AM

  FB's are supposed to have a visible line across the entire feature.. often, I have noticed... while the line looks full...it is short on one end or the other.... so, not a true FB.... a detail you might want to check for... Cheers, RickO

  0
• newcollect Posts: 205 ✭✭✭

  February 25, 2017 6:45PM

  @ricko said:
  FB's are supposed to have a visible line across the entire feature.. often, I have noticed... while the line looks full...it is short on one end or the other.... so, not a true FB.... a detail you might want to check for... Cheers, RickO

  0