The HIGH price of plastic! Buy the coin not the holder!! 1953-S Fanklin FBL
georgiacop50
Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭✭
How do you all like that 1953-S FBL coin at GC tonight?
0
georgiacop50
Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
sweet plastic markup on this girl too
https://greatcollections.com/Coin/636994/1876-Twenty-Cent-Piece-Doubled-Die-Reverse-PCGS-Proof-62-PCGS-Green-Regency-Holder
You can also buy the plastic not the coin. It is simply market ignorance to deny the value impacted by the holder and/or the sticker.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/630824/1953-S-Franklin-Half-Dollar-NGC-MS-65-FL
Looks like common plastic to me...
I'm not a MS Franklin expert by any stretch, but that coin does not look FBL to me.
Apparently two or three people think it is worth moon money.
“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 don't really want to comment on current auctions in progress, but I thought the same thing, I would never buy that as a solid fbl coin
In general I agree with that. But some examples are just so extreme of a rip off that I feel it my duty as a decent human being to warn others.
And that coin does not look any different in-hand... I have seen it before.
Any potential problems are evident in the photos. If someone buys any plastic blindly then that person deserves whatever happens to him or her.
I agree 100%.
Yep!
NEVER mind. Some of you guys will never get it.
“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!
?
Silence until the auction is over.
Until then, at one time both sets of bell lines had to be full and complete with no bridges or marks across them. Then one grading service changed the standard so that for them only the bottom set count. Obviously, that will increase the number of coins that receive a FBL designation. I prefer coins with both sets intact.
That supposedly is the NGC standard (i.e. both sets of lines intact).
That's not correct. PCGS has required only the bottom set from the get-go when they first started doing FBL designations. (and welcome back bud!)
I don't believe that and I shall find out. BTW, did you grade at PCGS in 1986?
Not FB imo either.
Okay you don't think full bell I say full blown gem coin with full mint bloom and check out the surface texture with mark few surfaces. I put premium on these attributes. Keep in mind these coins sometimes take a few times around the block to find a comfortable place to reside.
I believe you have misinterpreted the PCGS FBL requirement. I was always under the impression both sets of lines are evaluated, and if you review the PCGS YouTube video description since I guess they no longer publish the hardback standards, even though they verbally say the “bottom” lines, the accompanying illustration highlights both sets when describing what constitutes the designation. If you have some other guidance please share as I like to stay current, and I dig some Franklins.
Also wasn’t the soft strike on the ‘53-S always an issue, AND the big dollar key of the series? I haven’t checked the pop but maybe it’s a bit condition rarity and hardly ever available; I mean how else could you justify that cost?
Sold for (rounded) 21,000 with BP. I hope the buyer had a chance to view the coin up close before bidding.
PCGS ONLY evaluates the bottom bell lines. Words in the video are more important than images.
I see no bell lines to the left of the bell crack, and the lines to right aren’t too sharp either. But someone thinks it’s worth over $21k, so let the buyer believe in what they have.
The 1953 S is extremely rare with full Bell lines but this example does not exhibit them, regardless of what the plastic says. JMHO.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
It used to be that a full "Pass & Stow" was needed to indicate it was a full strike. You can't even read that. Definitely wouldn't get a green bean.
I guess this is a case of grading the coin based mostly one what other 1953-S coins look like rather than what a 65 FBL coin should be. I like NGC. If I were to grade this coin (from a photo) I would send it to the next grader as an MS-65 with a note on the computer: "Just?" They know that it means the coin is my personal MS-64 and I'm trying to be just as "commercially loose" as the rest of the world. In the image, the coin is not even close to FBLs but we'll never know for sure.
BTW, besides Pass & Stow, the Franklin purists say that a coin must have split hair ends on the OBVERSE too in order to qualify as fully struck. LOL.
I believe PCGS always only required the bottom set of lines also.
I did an album set of Franklins years ago... I was not worried about FBL at the time... I should pull that album out of storage and review what I have....I know there are no 68 FBL's in there...
Cheers, RickO
NO I did not. But that does not mean I was unaware of the FBL standard then and now and just throwing out guesses and suppositions as you apparently are doing.
These are FACTS:
1) PCGS did not designate FBL at all in 1986. PCGS did not begin designating FBLs until after they had been in operation for several years. I can never remember the exact year they began doing so but somewhere between 1989-91 I think.
2) PCGS never required the top set of 3 lines to be FULL to be awarded the designation.
Insider 2: Yes, I agree if the coin is graded as FBL, I expect FBL!
_**>
You sound very informed on the subject but now you've gone and done it...LOL.
Actually, I
was authenticating and grading coins professionally before many of you were born. I worked at the FIRST third-party GRADING SERVICE almost a decade before PCGS was a twinkle in Mr. Hall's eye. I've seen grading evolve and watched standards change over the decades. As a seminar instructor I needed to know what was going on in the hobby.
As I recall, and I'm going to check on this, **the accepted standard forever on BL was both top and bottom. That's the way it was taught for decades. I remember it was a big deal when I learned that PCGS decided to change their standards to the bottom set AT THE TIME CONTRARY TO EVERY OTHER MAJOR GRADING SERVICE (possibly in cahoots with CAC). I even wrote a grading column about it!
Nevertheless, It is quite possible that both of us are correct. They started with both sets (as was done by every dealer/collector/TPGS/numismatist at the time) and quickly changed to allow for more FBL coins to be grade thus stealing submissions from the other services.
Therefore, until I learn otherwise (and apologize to you and all of my former students for my erroneous instruction) PCGS changed their standards for FBL Franklins.
PS THE ONLY GUESSES I THROW OUT AROUND HERE are for GTG threads.
LOL. You are probably aware that you are stubborn to a fault. But that's OK, I have personality quirks as well, that is what makes us individuals.
Yes I know you are an experienced TPG grader, heck, you've told us that soo many times! But when your wrong , your wrong.
PCGS did not change from both sets to lower only. Period.
Rick Tomaska "conspired" with PCGS to decide what standard PCGS would use. This occurred WAY before CAC existed.
I don't normally brag, but it might interest you to know that when CAC was in infancy, JA contacted me for my input as to the whole FBL situation. He even wanted me to write an in depth date-by-date analysis of the Franklin series that he would publish as an educational tool. I declined due to time constraints.
And BTW you and I are very close to being the same age, so that "before you were born" spiel doesn't hold water with me
So far, your arguments are very convincing and before I posted I knew you would be a formidable opponent; however, I'm from the "Show Me State." I don't believe anything until I research it for myself. What you have posted goes against everything I thought I knew. LOL, it's as if you are telling me the earth is not flat! In any case, whatever the truth, this history of FBL's should be included in the next edition of any book on Franklin's.
This was a real hoot to read! You weren't here on the forums during the time when CAC was a "new" thing, so you weren't witness to the obvious animosity between CAC and PCGS back then. For the first year or two or three of CAC's history, one could actually be banned from the forums for posting CAC threads! It seemed to take a few years before PCGS realized CAC was not the enemy.
The reason I posted this was due to the fact that many years ago when I was researching the change from two sets of lines to one set of lines by PCGS, I logged on to the CAC website to see how they treated bands. There was an image of a "FBL" Franklin with a deep gash across the lower right BL near the edge of the bell! NOT A FBL by any stretch. I look for it today but found no comment about any "designations" done by CAC.
Perhaps I did not look in the right place.
I'm happy to give you a laugh. OLD NEWS to old guys! TPGS's don't like any completion. They howled about the "Eagle Eye" sticker too. So I'm not surprised to read how they felt about CAC.
@Insider2 I remembered that picture as well and I couldn't find it either so did a little digging. None can escape the wayback machine; this capture is from Oct. 2016.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161011220318/http://www.caccoin.com:80/category/reference-sets/
I think you are referring to FBL Coin 12 and/or 14
Collector, occasional seller
My recollection is similar to that of georgiacop50's in that I seem to recall that PCGS had not required the top set of lines to be complete for an FBL designation and that this difference vs. the way NGC awarded the designation was a big deal in the 1990s. However, this proves nothing, but if anyone wants a "show me" piece of evidence I can at least provide the Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection guide written and produced by PCGS from 1997. On p67 PCGS states their in-house definition for Franklin half dollar FBL designation and spells it out, in its entirety-
"When the bottom set of lines across the Liberty Bell is complete and uninterrupted, a regular-strike Mint State 60 or above Franklin half dollar receives the designation Full Bell Lines (FBL). If these lines are obscured by marks, strike, planchet defects, or other sources, the coin will not receive the FBL designation. A few marks across the lines will not prevent a coin from receiving this designation, as long as the continuity of the lines is not disturbed. Multiple marks, scratches, scrapes, or other detractions that interfere with the continuity of the lines will prevent a specimen from receiving the FBL designation. Slight incompleteness of the bell lines, immediate to the left or right of the crack that traverses the bell, will not prevent a coin from receiving the FBL designation. Premiums for some dates, such as some of the San Francisco issues, may be multiples of the non-FBL coins."
There are also a pair of images included with the description that reference only the bottom set of bell lines.
In short-
1) PCGS has required the bottom set of lines on the Liberty Bell to be complete for the FBL designation, without regard to the top set of lines, in 1997.
2) PCGS will still award the FBL designation to those Franklin half dollars that have slight incompleteness of the bottom set of bell lines immediately adjacent the crack in the bell.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
That is some time machine you've got. I saw a different image in a different format long ago but that #14 is a joke. Obviously the top bands don't coin either.
Let me be clear about something. IMHO, a FBL, FS, and FB coin is ALWAYS a FBL, FS, and FB coin! However, at some time, some idiot decided that a hit across a line AFFECTED A COINS STRIKE! No it affects its value and desirability. It's strike is still FULL!
Additionally, IMHO, another idiot thought up Net grading. Also in an attempt to indicate value.
Again, IMHO, only a ignorant fool would combine two parts of the grading equation as is commonly done! Examples:
Combining the amount of WEAR and the number of MARKS - Unc Choice and Unc Typical.
Combining a coin's STRIKE with MARKS - FS, FB, FBL.
There are more...
In the 1970's, we had a very simple, logical, and precise grading system (that worked consistently) for internal records and then used at the first grading service. Easy to teach, easy to use, hardly any subjectivity. Then
All this plus constantly fluctuating (loose/tight) standards (tied to market conditions) which continue to trend more liberal over time has screwed the pooch and brought about the need for CAC and from what I've seen lately we may need to add another sticker company in the future.
placing a value on a coin entered the equation.
Color me a frustrated old man. Until coins are strictly graded and THE MARKET NOT THE TPGS decides what they are worth, nothing is going to change. Learn the system as it exists and flow with it while you examine anything you purchase very carefully. The only "standard" that counts is your own - unless you are a grader following the company standards.
THANKS! I was waiting to look at the PCGS guide. A member quoted this from it: "When the bottom set of lines across the Liberty Bell is complete and uninterrupted, a regular-strike Mint State 60 or above Franklin half dollar receives the designation Full Bell Lines (FBL).
That proves from the DATE the guide was written ONLY the bottom set was used for FBLs. PCGS was founded in 1986. I'll see when the first edition was published. 1990's?
If it turns out I'm correct, we may be able to narrow down the time period I believe they changed their standard for FBL's after all.
That is the first edition (1997).
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
A lot can change in 10 years (1986- 1997).
Seems very strange to me that a brand new TPGS would come along in 1986 and try to change the historical interpretation of what a FBL coin should be.
I think it makes more sense to get established (one to two years in this case as they were swamped with submissions) and then screw with the prevailing standards. I don't think that anyone can disagree that PCGS was more strict when they started grading.
Don't you think that's kind of retarded when there are collectors seeking both level bell lines and very likely EDS examples......of any series They are not receiving their monetary dues from their possibly lifetime efforts when a professional grading service is aimlessly crowning inferior struck coins as the ultimate coins to collect. Shame on them and on you if you had that same insolent mindset in your grading days. ANACS did a far better job in recognizing fully struck coins.......IMO.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The same coin was also in the auction archives.
Sold in 2003 for $13,225
https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/1953-s-50c-ms65-full-bell-lines-ngc-one-of-the-greatest/a/308-7649.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0
And recently on Ebay for $15,990
https://ebay.com/itm/1953-S-50C-Franklin-Half-Dollar-MS65FBL-full-bell-lines-NGC-/173497613691?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m43663.l10137
With all due respect to the serious digression on when FBL came into existence, and what constituted FBL, IMO this Franklin is a LONGGGG way away from being FBL.
I personally don't get it. I can see someone taking a shot at a lower value coin that says FBL when it is not FBL if the coin is very attractive in other ways, but once you start talking $20K plus, you would think the bidder(s) would pay some attention the the primary reason the coin is (or is not) worth so much. I sure hope it's not some Newbie who's just flushed his/her money down the toilet.
U.S. Type Set
Since the auction has ended…..
Disagreeing with a valuable attributed coin’s legitimacy is like arguing a favorable call with the umpire. A review can change the call but who requests a review when the call is in your favor? It is the buyer’s judgement that counts. I do not own a 1953-s FBL Franklin. Given the resolution of the image, I have two pieces that comparatively have “better” “lower” lines than the Greatcollections image. However, my objectivity is questionable and after submitting both my specimens twice to our host, they do not agree with my FBL stretch. Obviously, there are a very limited number of high-resolution images of the 1953-S FBL Franklin. In my research, I have found that there are at least three different reverse dies that generated the FBL. (Pictured below) There may be more die marriages but 1953-S FBL images are just not available. The Greatcollections image appears to be from the “High S” die, which during the EDS produced some of the finest specimens of this rare coin. This particular piece appears to be a MDS of the “High S” reverse die. This would account for the soft definition of the lower bell lines assuming the image is accurate. Are they “full”? As other posters have pointed out, standards ebb and flow with the market. That is the nature of the pursuit. The quality of material from any series I collect always improves as I learn the nuances of that particular coin. I own some real “dogs” but I learn.
Nice Intueor!
From what I have seen the few FBL 1953-S's (and NEAR FBL's for that matter) have come from the reverse die that has some peculiar die gouges. The die with the gouges sports the Low S.
Nice conversation. Got a little strained at times, but it came back on track. My only comment concerns what Insider2 said about "Net grading". Since EAC grading of early coppers is ALL about Net grading, perhaps another description besides "fool" would be in order. Not that many EAC members would participate in a thread about Full Bell Lines.
Sorry -- he used "another idiot" in his post when referring to Net grading. Fool was applied to another thought. My apologies.
The first coins I started to collect seriously were Large cent overdates after reading a several part article with amazing illustrations in the Numismatist magazine.
I was once an EAC member. I dropped out because the detailed knowledge imparted by these numismatists was so far over my level of comprehension or needs that I didn't have the time to sit down and absorb it! The EAC, their membership, their scholarship, and the contributions made to the study of Large coppers is what numismatics is all about!
In my opinion, the only "Fool" is the person who decided to break away from the standard coin grading system and devise a separate one for Large cents sometime in the past. Net grading is a "folly" that is described in the EAC grading guide as not very precise and not related to TPGS s or ANA "standards." Why stupid? Because a high-grade coin can be dropped to several DIFFERENT grades (depending on how its defects affect each EAC'er) for factors other than loss of detail due to friction wear!