REPLY FOR MITCH: It seems that David Hall has only offered us "collectors" two choices. Neither of which is "full lower band" only. If this were a third option, I would be in favor of it over the other two. However, if my choice is limited to DH two options, I would be inclined to choose #2. WHY? If a change is to be made (and it will), I would prefer a change that would only effect a very small % of the coins already graded to date. Then the premium price commanded for these coins would be somewhat justified,IMHO. I also believe that any term suggesting "full torch" or "full strike" not be used. CALL IT WHAT IT IS. Daniel D. Biddle Paris, KY.
I only have two Rosey's. Both in my type set. My Silver Rosey is a PCGS MS67. It probably wouldn't make even FB for the lower bands. It is a colorful coin and very flashy. My clad Rosey is a MS69 and is a Full Torch, FSB, FB or whatever you would want to call it.. The strike of that coin is superb. I don't have enough experience to say how to designate the better struck coins. That sounds like something that David Hall, RegistryCoin, Wondercoin, Datentype, and some of the other top Rosey guys should all hash out together. This is sort of a revision to an earlier reply I made in this thread. mdwoods
I have been asked by Mr. Keith LaBrozzi to post these remarks.
"I say throw both of these options out and just grade the coin... PCGS only grades the obverse now.. So instead of adding less than 1 percent of the reverse you grade the whole thing and give it another grade i.e. MS69/68 (obverse/reverse)..How much would the couple of MS70/70's be worth compared to the hundreds of MS70F?..I have three 2002's in MS68 that will not make the Full whatever..They should not have graded that highly with that bad of a strike. These would be more like a MS68/66-65.." Keith E. LaBrozzi
So far, we have the following collectors/dealers/enthusiasts ALL agreeing the standard should be the BOTTOM BANDS ONLY:
1. THE #1 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR
2. THE #2 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER AND CLAD ROOSIE COLLECTOR
3. THE #1 1999 REGISTRY SET OWNER OF ROOSIES (who PCGS also asked to write the preamble for Roosies and Jefferson Nickels in the 2000 Registry Book)
4. THE #1 ALL-TIME AND CURRENT NGC SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR, WHO HAS QUIETLY CLIMBED UP THE PCGS CHARTS AS WELL AMASSING MORE PCGS-MS68 SILVER ROOSIES THAN ANY SET CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE REGISTRY.
5. THE OWNER OF 3/5 TOP SILVER SETS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND THE #3 CLAD SET.
6. OTHER COLLECTORS AND DEALER, DAVE SCHWEITZ.
Sounds like the overwhelming majority of dedicated Roosie collectors/enthusiasts/dealers prefer a bottom band designation standard. I am told NGC is reading this and I hope this is helpful to you as well
Also, I have also alerted PCGS to the problem of using the same standard for silver and clad Roosies, for which it appears Datentype, Registrycoin, Danny and DMWJR also agree.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I would have to agree with Mitch, the lower bands seem to be the major point of contention for the bands, and why penalize a scarcely seen fully stuck coin with hard to come by lower bands, if the upper bands which are usually full (in my short experience) happen to have a ding or slight incision on them. I say go with the lower bands, and the lower bands only, as it will also simplify the process as well.
morris <><
"Repent, for the kindom of heaven is at hand." ** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! ** Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY 28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST TEMECULA, CA 92590 (951) 757-0334
MR. HALL: When PCGS makes the final decision about this change, it is critically important that you inform us "collectors" in regard to the specifics that PCGS will be looking for when grading Rooseys. What will be considered acceptable, and what would cause a coin to be unacceptable? Detailed, enhanced photo images should be posted on the PCGS site, outlining the criteria that is needed, and showing the variations that would exclude a coin from "making the grade". It will be much easier for us when we examine our own coins for re-submission. Daniel D. Biddle Paris, KY.
So far, we have the following collectors/dealers/enthusiasts ALL agreeing the standard should be the BOTTOM BANDS ONLY:
1. THE #1 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR. Registycoin spent many years trying to collect a complete set of BOTTOM FULL BAND ROOSIES IN PCGS-MS67 OR BETTER. HE HAD MY ASSISTANCE IN HIS PROJECT FOR THAT ENTIRE TIME. THERE WERE NUMEROUS DATES HE WAS NEVER ABLE TO LOCATE. AGAIN, THIS WAS A SEARCH FOR BOTTOM FULL BANDS ONLY.
2. THE #2 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER AND CLAD ROOSIE COLLECTOR.
3. THE #1 1999 REGISTRY SET OWNER OF ROOSIES (who PCGS also asked to write the preamble for Roosies and Jefferson Nickels in the 2000 Registry Book). I SPENT A DOZEN YEARS OR SO BUILDING THE BEST SILVER ROOSIE SET I COULD. PRIOR TO 1999, PCGS WAS NOT GRADING VERY MANY MS67 ROOSIES PERIOD. HENCE, IT WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO COMPLETE MY TASK OF BUILDING A COMPLETE SET OF BOTTOM FULL BAND ROOSIES IN MS67 OR BETTER.
4. THE #1 ALL-TIME AND CURRENT NGC SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR, WHO HAS QUIETLY CLIMBED UP THE PCGS CHARTS AS WELL AMASSING MORE PCGS-MS68 SILVER ROOSIES THAN ANY SET CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE REGISTRY.
5. THE OWNER OF 3/5 TOP SILVER SETS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND THE #3 CLAD SET. I KNOW DANNY HAS ALWAYS PURSUED THE VERY BEST AND HAS HAD AN EYE OUT FOR FULL BAND COINS. HE HAS BASICALLY STATED THAT PERHAPS 10%-20% OF THE COINS MIGHT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY - WHAT HE HASN'T MENTIONED IS THAT OF THIS 10-20%, MOST FALL INTO A SELECT GROUPING OF DATES AND MINTMARKS.
6. OTHER COLLECTORS AND DEALER, DAVE SCHWEITZ. DAVE STATES TO BE STRICT AT FIRST - AND I AGREE. DAVE HAS WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITH A DESIGNATION SPANNING THE YEARS (NAMELY FULL HEAD SLQ's).
The overwhelming majority of dedicated WELL INFORMED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE Roosie collectors/enthusiasts/dealers prefer a bottom band designation standard. I am told NGC is reading this and I hope this is helpful to you as well.
Also, I have also alerted PCGS to the problem of using the same standard for silver and clad Roosies, for which it appears Datentype, Registrycoin, Danny and DMWJR also agree.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Although I don't have a registry set in dimes I do collect them.I would like option one.You should call it FB though.When I heard full tortch I thought of the flames not the bands.You will confuse and discourage the newbies with this misleading name.I was.
As I stated in a different post, I will not have any further statements regarding this "full Torch", "full split bands", but as I continue to read these posts, I am inclined to go against my word and make a few more statements.
1) I received the e-mail from BJ at PCGS. I am very sure, that I can say w/o a doubt, that possibly no one at PCGS is reading all of these fine posts that are being left from Mitch, Danny, and everyone else that has a Roosevelt set, and that is why I chose not to post anymore.
2) I just recently within the last 14 months or so started to collect Roosevelts, mainly form 1965-date. I don't have alot of money and therefore don't have a top of the line set. My humble set is #6 on the pole. I have voiced my opinion SEVERAL times. I too am wondering if I will get a response. Do I have to have 2,3,4 sets of a coin in order to be heard. who knows?
3) I believe that there should have been more notice, at least 90 days as a few people have mentioned. Also if they are going to WAIT until SEPTEMBER to add on this designation, then they CAN give EVERYONE ample time to change there sets. PCGS should really wait until 2004. What does it really matter to PCGS if I change my 1988-P persay to a different 1988-P?
4) If a few of the top notch Roosevelt collectors believe that the SILVER Rooseys are different in strike then the CLAD, then I am in 100% total agreement that these 2 should have a different designation.
5) Designation to a coin seems to be limited to just 1 side of that particular coin. Keith had a somewhat good point and that is this. Don't you think that a coin could have 2 different grades? Say MS67/MS68? one grade for the obverse and one for the reverse. I know that this is a whole different ballgame and it is opening a can of worms, but it does have its own logic.
6) If you call these Roosevelts FULL TORCH, then you MUST include the FULL TORCH, which is the top and bottom bands, the flame, and the vertical bands. If you are going to call these FULL SPLIT BANDS, then you must decide which band is too be split, top or bottom, or both.
7) PCGS should also ask the opinion of its major submitters of Roosevelt dimes, ie: WONDERCOIN & DATENTYPE. They I believe have a say in the matter. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Because I chose not to compete with serious Roosie collectors I sell coins to (by posting cool Roosies into a Registry set) AND not to use a Registry set as an advertising tool - I do not have a Registry set up AND THEREFORE APPEAR TO BE IGNORED IN THIS DISCUSSION.
I have been told about the continuing emails to Registry collectors and the questions in those emails WHICH APPEAR TO BE IGNORING THIS THREAD ENTIRELY.
ALL I CAN SAY IS I KNOW PCGS IS NOT THIS ARROGANT - ONE HAND MUST SIMPLY NOT BE TELLING THE OTHER HAND WHAT IS GOING ON. OTHER ISSUES MUST BE MORE PRESSING. I DOUBT SOMEONE AT THE COMPANY IS IN SOME SORT OF "TIME WARP" AND STILL BELIEVING HIS/HER ORIGINAL IDEA OF "FULL TORCH" MAKES SENSE (AFTER THE CONCEPT OF FULL FLAME WAS REJECTED). SOMEONE AT PCGS GOT BAD INFORMATION FROM SOME ILL-INFORMED ALLEGED ROOSIE "EXPERTS" TO COME OUT WITH THE CONCEPT IN THE FIRSTPLACE AND THINK THE TOP PCGS ROOSIE COLLECTORS WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A CONCEPT.
And, frankly, if PCGS does anything other than adopt a lower band designation, it will bring into question EVERY other designation PCGS has ever adopted. Again, why is 5/6 steps on a nickel OK? Why is only the LOWER Franklin bell lines OK ignoring the upper set of bell lines? Why is the center Mercury dime bands the key focal point? Why should a Roosie be treated any differently? Why in the world should a super rare date Roosie in FULL BANDS (lower bands) get knocked out because of a tiny scuff or tick in the upper bands? No one cares about that same scuff or tick in the upper bell lines of a Franklin half Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch, I hate to be the one to say it, but you've stated your case three of four times, and I am personally tired of hearing how slighted you feel. Take it up with PCGS, or Join the rest of us who have been ignored before and just "lump it."
Doug: I appreciate your comment, but, you'll have to bear with me on this one. Roosies are as near and dear to me as they are to you. My repeated comments are essentially contained in a single thread here. I have not started side posts on this forum or the Coin Forum to seek support for my position. Yes, I understand that it gets boring to read the same stuff, but, no one has yet taken the time to explain to me why Franklins only have the bottom set of bell lines looked at and why that is 100% acceptable, while it would not be acceptable on a Roosie. Inquiring minds want to know.
In fact, I just had another thought - if this whole issue about "full torch" centers around a possible "trademark" issue, may I strongly suggest that it still be abandoned for the proper designation of FULL BANDS for Roosies.
As always, trying to make the grading services even better companies.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
We feel your pain, and all agree with you on the Full Bands designation. I've already put my question about it in the Q&A forum for this week, and I am looking forward to a response tonight. Maybe that will be the end of it.
Doug, the sqweaky wheel gets the grease and since Mitch is doing the sqweakin' here we should honestly be thanking him, since he's standing up for all of us and our opinions collectively. Change is almost always good and it's important that we get this done right before it's too late! Also, I noticed that you got rid of your anti Lawyer kicker at the bottom of your emails?
Uhhhh....I hate to break this to you Doug but the "Godfather of all modern coins" is a Lawyer. Maybe we can put you in the ring with Wondercoin and do a pay-per-view live video stream on the PCGS website? The fee to watch could be a regular grading submission and then we can all grade the results.
I have worked in a pressed metal plant for the last 20 years. I know about stamping metal. Please PM me and I will tell you exactly how it should be!! mdwoods
Why???? You need a distinction between Full Bands for mercs and roosies. So FB is out.
FT is also out. Full Torch WHAT???????????
FTB or FBT follows the precedent set by the Franklin halves FBL FULL BELL LINES, also a three letter acronym. Did PCGS call the lines on the Liberty Bell FB (FULL BELL(S) )???? Of course NOT!!
Add FTB as well as FBT to the poll and I predict overwhelming support for at least one of them.
I only request that I be annointed as the father of either FTB or FBT or both.
If such acronym is selected I only ask for a lifetime of free grading of roosies from PCGS.
Now as to option #1 or #2, I do not think it really matters. What I think really matters is that this subject matter is worthy of a major summit between PCGS, NGC and any other grading service that wants to be involved. They must agree or it becomes a disaster in grading standards. This is an area in which PCGS can throw out an appropriate olive branch to work together with NGC to have some consistency. I suspect it will be option #1 top and bottom horizontal bands must be split. The vertical bands are more recessed into the surface of the coin and are not as important as to the defintion of solid strike in the center of the roosie reverse.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Mitch! I decided to e-mail BJ@PCGS with this exact post and this was the response:
"First of all, Paul, you are totally misinformed if you think that no one at PCGS reads the forums. You are under the assumption that because we infrequently post that we don't take the time to read. That is simply not the case. David Hall did make a post on the Set Registry forum last week soliciting opinions about the FT dimes. He and others at PCGS ARE reading those opinions. I also sent out the email yesterday soliciting opinions because many, many people who are set registrants do not participate in the forums. We are interested in hearing everyone's opinion.
All responses I am receiving will be going to David Hall and his staff to review. No, you may not get a personal response back, but your feedback will certainly be considered along with others such as Mitch from Wondercoin.
Let me give you a suggestion. If you are interested in a personal response to your posts on the forum, then your best bet is to either email David Hall directly (dh@collectors.com) or participate in the popular Tuesday Q&A sessions. It is virtually impossible, without hiring someone who would be dedicated to spending 100% of his time on the forum, to respond to each and every issue that arises. The forums have been established for collectors to communicate with each other. But never doubt for a minute that we don't read the posts and many, many times take action at some of the excellent suggestions that are made."
If you have any further questions, by all means, please feel free to email me. BJ Searls Set Registry Manager Collectors Universe 512.496.5018 512.420.8805 Fax
Now I totally appreciate everything that PCGS does, I really do. Roosevelts are near and dear too me also, and I would like to see this designation acknowledged correctly.
Just call it Full Split Bands just like the Mercury dimes and everyone will be happy.
"Oh I just got a new FB dime." "Oh really? What grade?" "Oh a MS-69FB dime." "What??? There are so few MS-69FB Mercuries out there!" "Oh sorry, I didn't tell you it was a Roosevelt Dime in FB? Hmm, maybe we should have used that FTB to make it easier? I guess we blew it when we had the chance years ago to call it FTB?"
Year, why do we have to mention a year. Type collectors don't care about years! No other series uses the same symbols as another series up to now for mint state coins. To use FB would be a very bad precedent. A very BAD mistake. With FB you are eventually going to run into an Abbott and Costello Whose on First and Whats on Second comedy routine.
Comments
It seems that David Hall has only offered us "collectors" two choices.
Neither of which is "full lower band" only.
If this were a third option, I would be in favor of it over the other two. However, if my choice is limited to DH two options, I would be inclined to choose #2. WHY? If a change is to be made (and it will),
I would prefer a change that would only effect a very small % of the coins already graded to date. Then the premium price commanded for these coins would be somewhat justified,IMHO.
I also believe that any term suggesting "full torch" or "full strike"
not be used. CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
Daniel D. Biddle
Paris, KY.
Todd
800.954.0270
It is a colorful coin and very flashy. My clad Rosey is a MS69 and is a Full Torch, FSB, FB or whatever you would want to call it.. The strike of that coin is superb. I don't have enough experience to say how to designate the better struck coins. That sounds like something that David Hall, RegistryCoin, Wondercoin, Datentype, and some of the other top Rosey guys should all hash out together.
This is sort of a revision to an earlier reply I made in this thread. mdwoods
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
"I say throw both of these options out and just grade the coin... PCGS only grades the obverse now.. So instead of adding less than 1 percent of the reverse you grade the whole thing and give it another grade i.e. MS69/68 (obverse/reverse)..How much would the couple of MS70/70's be worth compared to the hundreds of MS70F?..I have three 2002's in MS68 that will not make the Full whatever..They should not have graded that highly with that bad of a strike. These would be more like a MS68/66-65.." Keith E. LaBrozzi
He currently has 3 sets of registered Roosevelts.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
1. THE #1 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR
2. THE #2 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER AND CLAD ROOSIE COLLECTOR
3. THE #1 1999 REGISTRY SET OWNER OF ROOSIES (who PCGS also asked to write the preamble for Roosies and Jefferson Nickels in the 2000 Registry Book)
4. THE #1 ALL-TIME AND CURRENT NGC SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR, WHO HAS QUIETLY CLIMBED UP THE PCGS CHARTS AS WELL AMASSING MORE PCGS-MS68 SILVER ROOSIES THAN ANY SET CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE REGISTRY.
5. THE OWNER OF 3/5 TOP SILVER SETS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND THE #3 CLAD SET.
6. OTHER COLLECTORS AND DEALER, DAVE SCHWEITZ.
Sounds like the overwhelming majority of dedicated Roosie collectors/enthusiasts/dealers prefer a bottom band designation standard. I am told NGC is reading this and I hope this is helpful to you as well
Also, I have also alerted PCGS to the problem of using the same standard for silver and clad Roosies, for which it appears Datentype, Registrycoin, Danny and DMWJR also agree.
Wondercoin
morris <><
** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! **
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY
28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST
TEMECULA, CA 92590
(951) 757-0334
www.allvalleycoinandjewelry.com
When PCGS makes the final decision about this change, it is critically important that you inform us "collectors" in regard to the specifics that PCGS will be looking for when grading Rooseys.
What will be considered acceptable, and what would cause a coin to be unacceptable? Detailed, enhanced photo images should be posted on the PCGS site, outlining the criteria that is needed, and showing the variations that would exclude a coin from "making the grade".
It will be much easier for us when we examine our own coins for re-submission.
Daniel D. Biddle
Paris, KY.
1. THE #1 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR. Registycoin spent many years trying to collect a complete set of BOTTOM FULL BAND ROOSIES IN PCGS-MS67 OR BETTER. HE HAD MY ASSISTANCE IN HIS PROJECT FOR THAT ENTIRE TIME. THERE WERE NUMEROUS DATES HE WAS NEVER ABLE TO LOCATE. AGAIN, THIS WAS A SEARCH FOR BOTTOM FULL BANDS ONLY.
2. THE #2 ALL-TIME PCGS SILVER AND CLAD ROOSIE COLLECTOR.
3. THE #1 1999 REGISTRY SET OWNER OF ROOSIES (who PCGS also asked to write the preamble for Roosies and Jefferson Nickels in the 2000 Registry Book). I SPENT A DOZEN YEARS OR SO BUILDING THE BEST SILVER ROOSIE SET I COULD. PRIOR TO 1999, PCGS WAS NOT GRADING VERY MANY MS67 ROOSIES PERIOD. HENCE, IT WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO COMPLETE MY TASK OF BUILDING A COMPLETE SET OF BOTTOM FULL BAND ROOSIES IN MS67 OR BETTER.
4. THE #1 ALL-TIME AND CURRENT NGC SILVER ROOSIE COLLECTOR, WHO HAS QUIETLY CLIMBED UP THE PCGS CHARTS AS WELL AMASSING MORE PCGS-MS68 SILVER ROOSIES THAN ANY SET CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE REGISTRY.
5. THE OWNER OF 3/5 TOP SILVER SETS CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND THE #3 CLAD SET. I KNOW DANNY HAS ALWAYS PURSUED THE VERY BEST AND HAS HAD AN EYE OUT FOR FULL BAND COINS. HE HAS BASICALLY STATED THAT PERHAPS 10%-20% OF THE COINS MIGHT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY - WHAT HE HASN'T MENTIONED IS THAT OF THIS 10-20%, MOST FALL INTO A SELECT GROUPING OF DATES AND MINTMARKS.
6. OTHER COLLECTORS AND DEALER, DAVE SCHWEITZ. DAVE STATES TO BE STRICT AT FIRST - AND I AGREE. DAVE HAS WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITH A DESIGNATION SPANNING THE YEARS (NAMELY FULL HEAD SLQ's).
The overwhelming majority of dedicated WELL INFORMED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE Roosie collectors/enthusiasts/dealers prefer a bottom band designation standard. I am told NGC is reading this and I hope this is helpful to you as well.
Also, I have also alerted PCGS to the problem of using the same standard for silver and clad Roosies, for which it appears Datentype, Registrycoin, Danny and DMWJR also agree.
Wondercoin
1) I received the e-mail from BJ at PCGS. I am very sure, that I can say w/o a doubt, that possibly no one at PCGS is reading all of these fine posts that are being left from Mitch, Danny, and everyone else that has a Roosevelt set, and that is why I chose not to post anymore.
2) I just recently within the last 14 months or so started to collect Roosevelts, mainly form 1965-date. I don't have alot of money and therefore don't have a top of the line set. My humble set is #6 on the pole. I have voiced my opinion SEVERAL times. I too am wondering if I will get a response. Do I have to have 2,3,4 sets of a coin in order to be heard. who knows?
3) I believe that there should have been more notice, at least 90 days as a few people have mentioned. Also if they are going to WAIT until SEPTEMBER to add on this designation, then they CAN give EVERYONE ample time to change there sets. PCGS should really wait until 2004. What does it really matter to PCGS if I change my 1988-P persay to a different 1988-P?
4) If a few of the top notch Roosevelt collectors believe that the SILVER Rooseys are different in strike then the CLAD, then I am in 100% total agreement that these 2 should have a different designation.
5) Designation to a coin seems to be limited to just 1 side of that particular coin. Keith had a somewhat good point and that is this. Don't you think that a coin could have 2 different grades? Say MS67/MS68? one grade for the obverse and one for the reverse. I know that this is a whole different ballgame and it is opening a can of worms, but it does have its own logic.
6) If you call these Roosevelts FULL TORCH, then you MUST include the FULL TORCH, which is the top and bottom bands, the flame, and the vertical bands. If you are going to call these FULL SPLIT BANDS, then you must decide which band is too be split, top or bottom, or both.
7) PCGS should also ask the opinion of its major submitters of Roosevelt dimes, ie: WONDERCOIN & DATENTYPE. They I believe have a say in the matter. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
Because I chose not to compete with serious Roosie collectors I sell coins to (by posting cool Roosies into a Registry set) AND not to use a Registry set as an advertising tool - I do not have a Registry set up AND THEREFORE APPEAR TO BE IGNORED IN THIS DISCUSSION.
I have been told about the continuing emails to Registry collectors and the questions in those emails WHICH APPEAR TO BE IGNORING THIS THREAD ENTIRELY.
ALL I CAN SAY IS I KNOW PCGS IS NOT THIS ARROGANT - ONE HAND MUST SIMPLY NOT BE TELLING THE OTHER HAND WHAT IS GOING ON. OTHER ISSUES MUST BE MORE PRESSING. I DOUBT SOMEONE AT THE COMPANY IS IN SOME SORT OF "TIME WARP" AND STILL BELIEVING HIS/HER ORIGINAL IDEA OF "FULL TORCH" MAKES SENSE (AFTER THE CONCEPT OF FULL FLAME WAS REJECTED). SOMEONE AT PCGS GOT BAD INFORMATION FROM SOME ILL-INFORMED ALLEGED ROOSIE "EXPERTS" TO COME OUT WITH THE CONCEPT IN THE FIRSTPLACE AND THINK THE TOP PCGS ROOSIE COLLECTORS WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A CONCEPT.
And, frankly, if PCGS does anything other than adopt a lower band designation, it will bring into question EVERY other designation PCGS has ever adopted. Again, why is 5/6 steps on a nickel OK? Why is only the LOWER Franklin bell lines OK ignoring the upper set of bell lines? Why is the center Mercury dime bands the key focal point? Why should a Roosie be treated any differently? Why in the world should a super rare date Roosie in FULL BANDS (lower bands) get knocked out because of a tiny scuff or tick in the upper bands? No one cares about that same scuff or tick in the upper bell lines of a Franklin half
In fact, I just had another thought - if this whole issue about "full torch" centers around a possible "trademark" issue, may I strongly suggest that it still be abandoned for the proper designation of FULL BANDS for Roosies.
As always, trying to make the grading services even better companies.
Wondercoin
I still can't stand them, but I needed a change of scenery! I was going to cut the size of it down and put it back up, but just haven't done it.
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
The term should be "FTB." FULL TORCH BANDS.
OR "FBT" FULL BANDS TORCH.
Why???? You need a distinction between Full Bands for mercs and roosies. So FB is out.
FT is also out. Full Torch WHAT???????????
FTB or FBT follows the precedent set by the Franklin halves FBL FULL BELL LINES, also a three letter acronym. Did PCGS call the lines on the Liberty Bell FB (FULL BELL(S) )???? Of course NOT!!
Add FTB as well as FBT to the poll and I predict overwhelming support for at least one of them.
I only request that I be annointed as the father of either FTB or FBT or both.
If such acronym is selected I only ask for a lifetime of free grading of roosies from PCGS.
My comments as to #1 or #2 in the next posting.
"First of all, Paul, you are totally misinformed if you think that no one at PCGS reads the forums. You are under the assumption that because we infrequently post that we don't take the time to read. That is simply not the case. David Hall did make a post on the Set Registry forum last week soliciting opinions about the FT dimes. He and others at PCGS ARE reading those opinions. I also sent out the email yesterday soliciting opinions because many, many people who are set registrants do not participate in the forums. We are interested in hearing everyone's opinion.
All responses I am receiving will be going to David Hall and his staff to review. No, you may not get a personal response back, but your feedback will certainly be considered along with others such as Mitch from Wondercoin.
Let me give you a suggestion. If you are interested in a personal response to your posts on the forum, then your best bet is to either email David Hall directly (dh@collectors.com) or participate in the popular Tuesday Q&A sessions. It is virtually impossible, without hiring someone who would be dedicated to spending 100% of his time on the forum, to respond to each and every issue that arises. The forums have been established for collectors to communicate with each other. But never doubt for a minute that we don't read the posts and many, many times take action at some of the excellent suggestions that are made."
If you have any further questions, by all means, please feel free to email me.
BJ Searls
Set Registry Manager
Collectors Universe
512.496.5018
512.420.8805 Fax
Now I totally appreciate everything that PCGS does, I really do. Roosevelts are near and dear too me also, and I would like to see this designation acknowledged correctly.
Just call it Full Split Bands just like the Mercury dimes and everyone will be happy.
Thank you BJ...its always great to hear from you.
Paul B. Gunsallus
Later, Paul.
Don
Full Bands and
So why didn't PCGS use FL for Full lines for Franklin Halves? It is Full Bell lines.
FTB...Full Torch bands sounds really good.
(geeze, could the mean "hair lines"?!? LOL)
If "FB" on both Mercs and Roosies is too "confusing",.....
Don
Full Bands and
"Oh really? What grade?"
"Oh a MS-69FB dime."
"What??? There are so few MS-69FB Mercuries out there!"
"Oh sorry, I didn't tell you it was a Roosevelt Dime in FB? Hmm, maybe we should have used that FTB to make it easier? I guess we blew it when we had the chance years ago to call it FTB?"
Don
Full Bands and
With FB you are eventually going to run into an Abbott and Costello Whose on First and Whats on Second comedy routine.