The first PCGS MS67FBL blast white Franklin I have seen.

mdwoods · January 7, 2005 1:17AM

Here is the ebay link

foodude · January 7, 2005 1:41AM

I hope he still has this coin for FUN, and brings it. I've never seen a blast white MS67 Franklin, let alone a MS67FBL. I'd like to see it in person.

Russ · January 7, 2005 1:44AM

I think somebody got a gift on that coin. Seems like too much cheek chatter to me.

Russ, NCNE

MadMarty · January 7, 2005 2:22AM

501 series, that is show grading correct?

Russ · January 7, 2005 2:24AM

<< 501 series, that is show grading correct? >>

That's what I've heard.

Russ, NCNE

foodude · January 7, 2005 2:35AM

501 series, that is show grading correct?

That's what I understand- 501 (and 500) are show grades.

MadMarty · January 7, 2005 2:41AM

Maybe the 500 series is the $100 walk through and the 501 is the $200 walk through...

foodude · January 7, 2005 2:49AM

Maybe the 500 series is the $100 walk through and the 501 is the $200 walk through...

Not sure, but based on what I'm seeing at shows (and the value of the coin), I think both are now 501.

Merc · January 7, 2005 2:57AM

The 1950 can be found blast white in high grade. Others like the 1955 are tough to find white grading above 65. I'll agree with Russ, there is a lot of chatter on the cheek for a 67.

slabfab · January 7, 2005 3:04AM

<< I think somebody got a gift on that coin. Seems like too much cheek chatter to me.

Russ, NCNE >>

Yeah, I wonder if that chatter is coin or holder...it's really not that great a pic for a 20K coin, IMHO.
Hey, Buy it Now for 21K! What a deal! ...and they'll combine shipping charges to boot!

classiccoin · January 7, 2005 3:11AM

is that the same seller from another derogatory thread here somewhere

BigGreek · January 7, 2005 3:14AM

<< I think somebody got a gift on that coin. Seems like too much cheek chatter to me.

Russ, NCNE >>

I was thinking the same.. plus the reed mark on the portrait above the WE.

mdwoods · January 7, 2005 4:33AM

That photo is terrible. I would like to see it in person though.

Craton · January 7, 2005 4:38AM

Looks full of hairlines.

foodude · January 7, 2005 4:38AM

I would like to see it in person though.

I agree- it easier to access what a coin really looks like in person.

IrishMike · January 7, 2005 4:44AM

This is what makes this hobby fun. I was thinking when I saw it that it got the grade it deserved. Of course I would never spend that kind of dough without having it in hand.

Shamika · January 7, 2005 9:13AM

Hate to say it, but I like foodude's icon coin better.

foodude · January 7, 2005 10:37AM

Hate to say it, but I like foodude's icon coin better.

Thanks. It is a '60 endroller. It is in a PCGS MS65 holder that was graded long ago. If I remember, I'll bring it to the TCCS meeting @ FUN.

airplanenut · January 7, 2005 11:42AM

<< The 1950 can be found blast white in high grade. Others like the 1955 are tough to find white grading above 65. I'll agree with Russ, there is a lot of chatter on the cheek for a 67. >>

To build on that... in the ANA grading class, we learned that so few exist white because they tend to tone thick, and the toning usually obliterates small marks on the coins--that's why even a deeply toned piece that might be considered ugly will grade higher than if it were identical, but white... the toning masks the marks.

Jeremy

robertpr · January 7, 2005 12:25PM

Overgraded by two points.

To build on that... in the ANA grading class, we learned that so few exist white because they tend to tone thick, and the toning usually obliterates small marks on the coins--that's why even a deeply toned piece that might be considered ugly will grade higher than if it were identical, but white... the toning masks the marks.

Jeremy, that has been my opinion for a long time now, and when I first started regularly visiting the boards, I remember arguing that point to one "Lucybop". I don't think she agrees even today. This is true for other series too but not even remotely as true as it is in the Franklin series. To add to that, the design does not hide marks and so it's tough to find coins that grade 65 or higher anyway, so most 65's and the vast majority of MS66+ Franklins are toned (because they're really 64's or 63's under the toning).

robertpr · January 7, 2005 12:26PM

Oh and yes the seller was recently reported by "somebody" on these boards to eBay for shilling their auctions.

Coinhusker1 · January 7, 2005 12:38PM

Is it me, or does that seller's coins seem consistently lousy looking for the grade?

keets · January 7, 2005 12:40PM

To build on that... in the ANA grading class, we learned that so few exist white because they tend to tone thick, and the toning usually obliterates small marks on the coins--that's why even a deeply toned piece that might be considered ugly will grade higher than if it were identical, but white... the toning masks the marks.

this is party true but probably more wrong. the tone might indeed hide some marks, but there is a much simpler and less sinister reason why most high graded Franklins are toned. the tone comes from the Mint Set holders that they came in, Mint Set holders and Mint Set assembly kept the coins from being bag marked to death by coin counters as they were put into rolls. rolls kept the coins brilliant but lowered the grades as a part of the process. sadly, most of the gem Mint Set examples have unattractive color, but as a rule they are more mark free than their machine counted cousins. that accounts more for the higher grades than un-seeable marks due to the tone.

the ANA grading class screwed the pooch if they failed to point that out.

al h.

IrishMike · January 7, 2005 7:45PM

PCGS recently overgrades a blast white coin by two grades, and you say this based off a computer photo. Big statement with little proof. I'll say it again it looks ok to me. But hey what do I know I've only been buying them since the 60's. Have anyone of you held a 67 blast white in your hand and looked at it?

keets · January 7, 2005 11:00PM

hey Mike

good point. noting what appears to be some chatter on the cheek of a huge online picture while failing to note strike, luster and overall surface quality is rather stupid and one-dimensional from a grading standpoint. i think much of the two-point overgrade hysteria comes from the fact of who the seller is, as if they have anything to do with grading the coin. bias at it's worst and the forum at it's best.

al h.

LucyBop · January 7, 2005 11:43PM

<< Overgraded by two points.

To build on that... in the ANA grading class, we learned that so few exist white because they tend to tone thick, and the toning usually obliterates small marks on the coins--that's why even a deeply toned piece that might be considered ugly will grade higher than if it were identical, but white... the toning masks the marks.

Jeremy, that has been my opinion for a long time now, and when I first started regularly visiting the boards, I remember arguing that point to one "Lucybop". I don't think she agrees even today. This is true for other series too but not even remotely as true as it is in the Franklin series. To add to that, the design does not hide marks and so it's tough to find coins that grade 65 or higher anyway, so most 65's and the vast majority of MS66+ Franklins are toned (because they're really 64's or 63's under the toning). >>

And your right, I still disagree with you 100%! I have hundreds of Franklins that are toned that I wish the toning would hide the ticks/hits and marks...... I disagree that toning hides these flaws, toning hides hairlines but not so much the hits on a Franklin.

And PCGs just doesn't run out and give high grades because a coin is toned or toned thick...
The people that truely have experience with PCGs and Franklins realize that their is a certian look in a given grade that they seek.
And with that knowledge they search for those type of coins and capitalize.

Also, unlike you I can't call this white ms67 over graded by 2 points, you see, I need more then these images, I would need to get real cozy with this one in my hand. I don't now how many ms67's you have owned, seen in person, I will say I have owned and seen my share of them, and the one thing that stood out in the examples I have experience with is the knockout luster that these coins have, which plays a big role in the eye appeal that warrants a bump to a seven holder...

keets · January 8, 2005 12:20AM

the bit....................better not go there!!!!!!!!!!! the beauty is back as a beast, a Franklin lovin' beast, that is!!!!

al h.

robertpr · January 8, 2005 12:01PM

Also, unlike you I can't call this white ms67 over graded by 2 points, you see, I need more then these images, I would need to get real cozy with this one in my hand. I don't now how many ms67's you have owned, seen in person, I will say I have owned and seen my share of them, and the one thing that stood out in the examples I have experience with is the knockout luster that these coins have, which plays a big role in the eye appeal that warrants a bump to a seven holder...

I do admit, this coin does appear from the images to have exceptional lustre! I wouldn't mind owning this coin, but to think it's a $20,000 MS67 is a stretch, IMHO. OK so I haven't seen it in person. Maybe someone photoshopped on the hits on the cheek, in the hair, in the field behind the head, on the bust, and below the bust. Not to mention in and on the lettering of "Liberty".

Maybe, just maybe, it would floor me if I saw it in person.

Oh and hey Lucy I'm not trying to knock you at all. You've got a great eye and from what I've seen posted, some nice coins too.

foodude · January 8, 2005 12:14PM

exceptional lustre

And remember how much PCGS loves luster

Often when I see a PCGS coin where people say " how can that be ..., it is this mark, and that mark," and I look at the coin and think, well, yeah, but what a strike, and WOW what amazing luster. People may not agree with the weight PCGS seems to give luster, but their standards may not be the same as the standards being applied by others (v., e.g., NGC, which seems to favor lack of marks a bit, personal standards, etc.).

robertpr · January 8, 2005 12:15PM

Oh by the way Keets if you want to call people names then go to the Open Forum and do it, because while it may be OK there it's not appropriate here.

MadMonk · January 17, 2005 10:50PM

<< I think somebody got a gift on that coin. Seems like too much cheek chatter to me.

Russ, NCNE >>

Russ,
Your cheek chatter comment reminded me of something.
Sometimes Franklins will look like they have been abraded, but what we are seeing is the result of the metal not flowing fully into the die. Either way it's distracting, but I thought I'd bring it up.

The first PCGS MS67FBL blast white Franklin I have seen.

Comments

Leave a Comment