Thanks for the great image. That specimen is very close to FBL. I have 12 UNC 1953-S Franklins in my collection. Four are the “Low S” variety and none have those die scratches. Something new to look for!
This is the closest I have ever come to 1953 – S FBL:
I think our host’s graders shot it down because of the weak spot above the arrow. The coin was in a Franklin Complete Set Capital Plastic holder I purchased several years ago. I was hunting Franklin varieties at a table on the floor of the Westchester coin show. A guy came up to the dealer and asked $300.00 for this Franklin set that was housed in a Capital holder in a custom black satin bag. Without even looking at the set, he sarcastically said, “Nobody will give you that money for a set of UNC Franklins” and passed the offer. The guy sorta cocked his head and smiled as he walked away. Now this guy thought enough of that set that he kept it protected in a custom folio. I caught up with him, with three $100s’ in my hand. He did not say a word, took the money, smiled, handed me the set, and just walked away. When I got home, I was stunned. All the coins were at least 90% white, no sliders, and would easily grade 64-66. What was really neat was all the “commons” were strong FBL. Most of the key FBL’s had lower lines at the level of this coin or better. Every coin was eventually sent to our host for grading. Some came back 64 FBL (49d,52s,53p,62p,63p) but the rest came back 65 and ALL FBL except two this one (MS-65 53s) and the 1958P. You would be interested to know the 1958-P was a Type 2 and came back MS66 but not FBL (oh so close).
Something @insider2 discussed has paralleled my journey perusing the Franklin series. After doing my homework, I bought my first Unc Franklin in 1981. It was a 1948-P with golden toning and strong upper and lower FBLs. In 1982, the Franklins were hot but toning was not. In all the books (no internet then), “PASS & STOW” clarity“, FULL HAIR”, and bright white coins were the high standards for the series. However, due to Master Die ware and re-engraving, this standard proved unobtainable for many dates. When dealers could not liquidate their “substandard” GEM inventory, the standard evolved to the less accepted FBL designation, which few of the original Franklin investors possessed. As such, feeling “sandbagged” the bottom dropped out of the Franklin collector market. That stigma is still reflected in the acceptance of the Franklin half series. The 1953-S FBL Franklin proved to be the “governor” to pursuing a complete MS-65 FBL collection and has disillusioned may potential collectors.
As to @IrishMikey’s (thanks) reference to EAC and the collector culture, I think that in time every major series (Franklins too) will have devotees who will wrangle over the tiniest detail of every coin in a series. This is what collecting should be about. The need to specialize, the quest for hidden knowledge, and the discovery of rarity are personal passions to be relished and enjoyed.
@Insider2 said:
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.
I looked it up (on my own old holder coins), and you are incorrect about PCGS and FBL. They have always been the bottom set of lines only. Not sure what further proof someone can provide, and we won't judge you because your wrong. It's OK. Hopefully this won't cause you to use LARGE LETTERS AND ALL CAPS again.
I looked it up (on my own old holder coins), and you are incorrect about PCGS and FBL. They have always been the bottom set of lines only. Not sure what further proof someone can provide, and we won't judge you because your wrong. It's OK. Hopefully this won't cause you to use LARGE LETTERS AND ALL CAPS again.
The 1953-S you posted looks like it is certainly worth trying repeatedly!
The 4th example of 1953-S FBL shown on Coinfacts is one I made about ten years ago. It took 6 or 7 submissions before it got the blessing.
I am a firm believer that several of the 1953-S FBLs that are out there are mechanical errors. The 1953-S that LucyBop made long ago is one. NO WAY did the coin have FBLs but everybody just "went along with it" including several major Franklin Dealers who subsequently handled the coin (Greg Allen and Rick Tomaska among them).
I KNOW such Mechanical errors DO OCCUR. Years ago I was surprised to receive an MS65FBL 1953-S from PCGS. It was not even close! A week later I got a call from the PCGS dealer I had submitted through, and he said PCGS wanted me to return the coin to them because someone pressed the wrong button when entering the grade/printing the label. So it stands to reason that the same Mechanical Error could have been made at other times and went undetected!
As to “several of the 1953-S FBLs that are out there are mechanical errors”, I do not have that kind of luck. I do admire your integrity in retuning the coin and cooperating with PCGS. What fascinates me is the internal quality control within PCGS to catch the error after shipment and then the follow through. This demonstrates PCGS’s serious effort to maintain impeccable standards by admitting a mistake and correcting it. (No smoke intended.) I am also impressed with your determination to risk the repeated financial obligation of resubmissions to prove your personal assessment of your coin. OK, the reward is substantial from a 1953-S MS65 regrade to MS65 FBL but the conviction to force repeated evaluation to prove your assessment as FBL is commendable. I have never resubmitted a PCGS coin. I do not always agree with the grade and/or attribute but I just think that if I resubmit a PCGS slabbed coin to PCGS for a reexamination, it will always come back the same. After all, the coin did not miraculously change in the holder and the new graders already know the previous determination. I could “crack it”. I have done this with many carefully selected NGC, ANACS, etc. slabs and usually am rewarded by PCGS with a higher grade or recognized attribute. However, to “crack out” a PCGS coin and send it in to PCGS as a raw submission seems deceptive. Yes, that is a bit naive, and I am sure the PCGS entity does not really care as long as I submit the fees. In truth, PCGS’s assessment of the coin imaged above is accurate. There is a weak spot to the left of the crack in the bottom set of lines. I see it even if I do not want to admit it! Thank you for your encouragement and input. You have inspired me to submit a raw 1953-S that, I believe, has even better lower lines that the one I imaged. If it does not come back FBL, maybe I will try your tact and resubmit it…….
@georgiacop50 said:
Just enter 83712534 into the Cert verification box and then click on the image
Got it. Thanks
Wow, Nice piece.
Whoa, now I could see that one getting in a FBL holder - the lines are not hammered, but appear to be defined just enough, and definitely more so than the 2 examples pictured above in this thread.
I very much dislike the binary nature of strike designations, particularly based on one design feature such as the head, bands, bell lines, etc, as well as less formalized, but customary ones like hand, skirt lines, hair over ear, breast feathers, etc.
I'd much prefer the quality of strike and die state and alignment to be expressed as a percentage of 100% on slab tags, with regions described with words as appropriate, perhaps on the back of the tag, have never understood why the real estate on the reverse of the holder is wasted.
Personally, I sought out the best of full strike, condition and steps in Jefferson nickels and did quite well. The same can be said about the best of full strike, condition and bell lines or the bands for Mercury dimes etc.
I certainly don't hold the title for the best of weak strikes, condition and steps. And we all know who is fastly approaching that title.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
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!
Enough already! You don't like net grading. We get it. Others find benefit. It doesn't mean they're "stupid". It just means they're of a different opinion. As I've said before, if you're going to collect older Large Cents, you best understand the EAC approach.
Comments
@georgiacop50
Thanks for the great image. That specimen is very close to FBL. I have 12 UNC 1953-S Franklins in my collection. Four are the “Low S” variety and none have those die scratches. Something new to look for!
This is the closest I have ever come to 1953 – S FBL:
I think our host’s graders shot it down because of the weak spot above the arrow. The coin was in a Franklin Complete Set Capital Plastic holder I purchased several years ago. I was hunting Franklin varieties at a table on the floor of the Westchester coin show. A guy came up to the dealer and asked $300.00 for this Franklin set that was housed in a Capital holder in a custom black satin bag. Without even looking at the set, he sarcastically said, “Nobody will give you that money for a set of UNC Franklins” and passed the offer. The guy sorta cocked his head and smiled as he walked away. Now this guy thought enough of that set that he kept it protected in a custom folio. I caught up with him, with three $100s’ in my hand. He did not say a word, took the money, smiled, handed me the set, and just walked away. When I got home, I was stunned. All the coins were at least 90% white, no sliders, and would easily grade 64-66. What was really neat was all the “commons” were strong FBL. Most of the key FBL’s had lower lines at the level of this coin or better. Every coin was eventually sent to our host for grading. Some came back 64 FBL (49d,52s,53p,62p,63p) but the rest came back 65 and ALL FBL except two this one (MS-65 53s) and the 1958P. You would be interested to know the 1958-P was a Type 2 and came back MS66 but not FBL (oh so close).
Something @insider2 discussed has paralleled my journey perusing the Franklin series. After doing my homework, I bought my first Unc Franklin in 1981. It was a 1948-P with golden toning and strong upper and lower FBLs. In 1982, the Franklins were hot but toning was not. In all the books (no internet then), “PASS & STOW” clarity“, FULL HAIR”, and bright white coins were the high standards for the series. However, due to Master Die ware and re-engraving, this standard proved unobtainable for many dates. When dealers could not liquidate their “substandard” GEM inventory, the standard evolved to the less accepted FBL designation, which few of the original Franklin investors possessed. As such, feeling “sandbagged” the bottom dropped out of the Franklin collector market. That stigma is still reflected in the acceptance of the Franklin half series. The 1953-S FBL Franklin proved to be the “governor” to pursuing a complete MS-65 FBL collection and has disillusioned may potential collectors.
As to @IrishMikey’s (thanks) reference to EAC and the collector culture, I think that in time every major series (Franklins too) will have devotees who will wrangle over the tiniest detail of every coin in a series. This is what collecting should be about. The need to specialize, the quest for hidden knowledge, and the discovery of rarity are personal passions to be relished and enjoyed.
@Intueor
Great story about the UNC set! The numismatic Santa seller, the instinctual knowledge to pursue quality. Bravo Zulu
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Neither set on this coin is full.
I looked it up (on my own old holder coins), and you are incorrect about PCGS and FBL. They have always been the bottom set of lines only. Not sure what further proof someone can provide, and we won't judge you because your wrong. It's OK. Hopefully this won't cause you to use LARGE LETTERS AND ALL CAPS again.
You ditched @Insider2 original ride. Steampunk!
Could've sworn I've heard this before!
@Intueor I posted this in another thread but am tagging you on it in this thread so you won't miss it.
This is FBL IMHO and was sent in for about the 6th time last month but still "no fbl".
https://pcgs.com/cert/83712534
The 1953-S you posted looks like it is certainly worth trying repeatedly!
The 4th example of 1953-S FBL shown on Coinfacts is one I made about ten years ago. It took 6 or 7 submissions before it got the blessing.
I am a firm believer that several of the 1953-S FBLs that are out there are mechanical errors. The 1953-S that LucyBop made long ago is one. NO WAY did the coin have FBLs but everybody just "went along with it" including several major Franklin Dealers who subsequently handled the coin (Greg Allen and Rick Tomaska among them).
I KNOW such Mechanical errors DO OCCUR. Years ago I was surprised to receive an MS65FBL 1953-S from PCGS. It was not even close! A week later I got a call from the PCGS dealer I had submitted through, and he said PCGS wanted me to return the coin to them because someone pressed the wrong button when entering the grade/printing the label. So it stands to reason that the same Mechanical Error could have been made at other times and went undetected!
Oh my, that was a $20k gift to the submitter 😮
This 53S PCGS 65FBL Sold last August for $14,400 - does not look much better
Also there is a PCGS 67FBL 53S in the pops - is there an image out there of that coin, or has anyone seen it?
As to “several of the 1953-S FBLs that are out there are mechanical errors”, I do not have that kind of luck. I do admire your integrity in retuning the coin and cooperating with PCGS. What fascinates me is the internal quality control within PCGS to catch the error after shipment and then the follow through. This demonstrates PCGS’s serious effort to maintain impeccable standards by admitting a mistake and correcting it. (No smoke intended.) I am also impressed with your determination to risk the repeated financial obligation of resubmissions to prove your personal assessment of your coin. OK, the reward is substantial from a 1953-S MS65 regrade to MS65 FBL but the conviction to force repeated evaluation to prove your assessment as FBL is commendable. I have never resubmitted a PCGS coin. I do not always agree with the grade and/or attribute but I just think that if I resubmit a PCGS slabbed coin to PCGS for a reexamination, it will always come back the same. After all, the coin did not miraculously change in the holder and the new graders already know the previous determination. I could “crack it”. I have done this with many carefully selected NGC, ANACS, etc. slabs and usually am rewarded by PCGS with a higher grade or recognized attribute. However, to “crack out” a PCGS coin and send it in to PCGS as a raw submission seems deceptive. Yes, that is a bit naive, and I am sure the PCGS entity does not really care as long as I submit the fees. In truth, PCGS’s assessment of the coin imaged above is accurate. There is a weak spot to the left of the crack in the bottom set of lines. I see it even if I do not want to admit it! Thank you for your encouragement and input. You have inspired me to submit a raw 1953-S that, I believe, has even better lower lines that the one I imaged. If it does not come back FBL, maybe I will try your tact and resubmit it…….
PS. My browser could not resolve: "https://pcgs.com/cert/83712534" Could you please direct me to the other thread?
Just enter 83712534 into the Cert verification box and then click on the image
Got it. Thanks
Wow, Nice piece.
Whoa, now I could see that one getting in a FBL holder - the lines are not hammered, but appear to be defined just enough, and definitely more so than the 2 examples pictured above in this thread.
I very much dislike the binary nature of strike designations, particularly based on one design feature such as the head, bands, bell lines, etc, as well as less formalized, but customary ones like hand, skirt lines, hair over ear, breast feathers, etc.
I'd much prefer the quality of strike and die state and alignment to be expressed as a percentage of 100% on slab tags, with regions described with words as appropriate, perhaps on the back of the tag, have never understood why the real estate on the reverse of the holder is wasted.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
PS: All coin Grades below MS70 are "Net" grades. IMHO only a "fool" cannot comprehend this simple and obvious Fact. 😁
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Personally, I sought out the best of full strike, condition and steps in Jefferson nickels and did quite well. The same can be said about the best of full strike, condition and bell lines or the bands for Mercury dimes etc.
I certainly don't hold the title for the best of weak strikes, condition and steps. And we all know who is fastly approaching that title.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Heck, I have a 1953-S with better lines than this coin.
Maybe time to give it a try at regrade.
Enough already! You don't like net grading. We get it. Others find benefit. It doesn't mean they're "stupid". It just means they're of a different opinion. As I've said before, if you're going to collect older Large Cents, you best understand the EAC approach.
Smitten with DBLCs.