Looking for thoughts on FSB of this Merc.........
Oney
Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭✭
Looking for insights/thoughts/opinions on the bands on this coin. Thanks in advance for you opinion.
Brian
4
Comments
In my opinion no, very close but no.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I say NO. I cannot magnify the image. In spite of what you think, it is whatever the TPGS says it is. On a coin as this with the price jump, it has to be all there.
The center bands do not appear to qualify.... Cheers, RickO
Its a $17 risk and a freebee to PCGS. I think it is worth a go.
It wouldn't be a "freebee", unless they grade it for free, you'd never have another coin for which you could get free grading in its place and you incur no postage charges. In addition to that, it doesn't look like it has any realistic chance at a FB designation. Still, best of luck to you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
By freebee I mean on my free submission voucher. Thanks for your feedback though.
I considered that, which is why I included my remark about postage and "...you'd never have another coin for which you could get free grading in its place". If you have or will have another coin that you can get graded for free, instead, you'll either be paying for this one or the next one, so it wont really be free. Save the "freebie" for a better candidate for grading?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks Mark. I respect your opinion.
No on the FSB, that date and mint are too rare for them to give any leeway.
Considering they gave this a FB,you might have a shot
Is that a 1945-P?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is not FB either.....not even close.
Based on the picture, I agree. But his point is that the coin still received a FB designation. I asked if it’s a 1945-P, because I think that issue would be far less likely to receive a gift of a FB designation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No thats the $300k+ ms68+FB dime that was just sold
No, it is the 1938-S PCGS MS68+ FB CAC that Hansen just dropped $370k on. I recognize the image because it was from my screen shot and crop in another thread.
Thanks. My guess is that the bands look much more convincing, in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think it is 100% worth trying to make it a FB 1945 P...that's a $30 gamble. Looks close but I wouldn't pay FB money for it. Good luck and keep us posted.
Regardless of whether it goes FB or not, it is still a nice example. You might be able to find a strike specialist that will pay you a premium (granted it wouldn't be anything near FB). I agree with the other poster that it is worth a shot. At the least, you could have it True Viewed while there (assuming you crack and submit to PCGS).
@MFeld asked: "Is that a 1945-P?"
My first question also.
I noticed that Mr. Hansons 370K coin didn't have bands either, but didn't say anything due to the wrath that would come down on me. This whole thing about looking better in hands doesn't hold water either. On grading yes, but bands no. I have seen so many coins get FB when they are NOT there it's ridiculous.
I too have wondered about it. The images look like a clear "no." On the other hand, NGC saw this at least once, PCGS at least twice, and CAC at least twice and all of them agreed with the FB designation.
I agree. It all comes down to magnification and lighting. The posted image is highly magnified. I'm sure it was not examined using that amount of magnification at the TPGS.
I’ve seen many occasions where bands or bell lines looked full, in hand, even though they didn’t in images. However, that doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with some of the designations I have seen in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But that is a LOT of metal spanning what should be a void in the metal, no? Compare the 1931-S that Hansen also bought. Even under equivalent level magnification, the bands are clearly separated. Would lighting and magnification make that much of a difference? I wish I could have viewed the two coins in hand.
Edited to add:
Here is an image with lower magnification... It still looks problematic to me.
Been a while since I paid attention to FB, but I seem to recall a time when the bands had to be rounded in addition to being split. For the huge multiple applied to a a 45P the bands would have to really pop - for me.
I see at least 3 places where the bands touch on the Hanson coin.
And overall not a great reverse strike IMO. Res ipsa loquitur.
I'm glad it's his coin and not mine.
Shaking my head in disbelief that the '38-S got FB designation...
The OP's '45 not full bands but get a TPG to say it is would be like winning the lottery. I would send it in.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Nope.
An example of folks with unlimited funds chasing coins for the registry that really don't meet the criteria or specifics respect to a grade and/ or designations, but because the label says it is, it must be. if I were in this situation, and were spending millions on stuff, I would hire the best to assist me in pursuing the right coins.
If the OP's coin were any date other than 1945, it would likely FB.
As a 1945, not likely.
Dates should not matter on grades or designations. The coin is there or it isn't.
I agree with you.
But the TPGs don't agree with us.
I agree with Dimeman 101% and I'll tell you this much...If I'm dropping 3.5 large on a dime with FB's they better be laser cut without even a fleck of dust near the bands let alone a few contact marks, and to have this in an 8+FB holder with those bands is just wrong IMHO.
Later, Paul.
Absolutely!
I agree with the others on the OP coin. Its a 98% fb. I have a few.
The center bands hold them back.
The 45 is worth much more in fb, so they grade them stringently. Worth more than a run of the mill 45P, to the right buyer, but no where near fb money.
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder
I THINK THE PRESENCE of full bands or ABSENCE of FB has been fully addressed by others. I have not posted my opinion because it does not matter what I think. The label says FB.
Lighting and especially MAGNIFICATION makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE. That's why a standard of magnification is given by TPGS graders if pushed to respond. I believe it is now set at 5X.
In my grading class, I tell my students that the diamond industry also has a standard - 10X. If no inclusions can be seen at that power it is CONSIDERED to be a flawless diamond and certified as such.
However, when I
buy a diamond and the jeweler puts a bunch of flawless, white diamonds out for me to examine using his stereoscope set at 10X, I'll reach up and crank the power up as high as it will go - perhaps 40X - 60X. Then I'll pick the "flawless stone" with the least number of FLAWS! LOL. Standards may change in the future.