Extremely Disappointed with PCGS

I might be mistaken, but I'm not sure all graders use the same FBL standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You are correct.

 

No, NGC uses puppies.

 

I agree with your comments as to the TPG's. The grading system is controversial, and exactly why I don't play the game.
In my opinion the FBL IS graded, otherwise there would be no need to separate the designation. I was only working with the OP's statements.
The OP here did not say that he thought the Franklins were undegraded, He said that they should have gotten the FBL. Personally, I am waiting for the photos to see the bell lines.

Yes they do, the OP should be aware of each of the grading co. techniques before sending the coins for the designation.

 

The OP may have a tough time trying to catch the bell lines. I know I do.

 

No, they don't http://www.franklinlover.yolasite.com/full-bell-lines-guide.php

 

Not to hijack a thread, but is there any TPG that is less strict on FSB Mercuries?

 

Your right, I meant to say that they use different standards.

I also believe that to get a fully struck coin, all the details should be present not just some of them. Unless someone can prove that some dies were not made that way. Then and only then can the lower bell lines justify a complete strike.

 

I thought things like full steps, FBL, etc. are "intended" to be indicators of how well the coin was struck. Are you saying that that is true but in fact these things aren't very good indicators?

 

Yes, NGC is widely considered to be stricter on all strike designations. PCGS is widely considered to be looser. Just search for their published standards, and you will see why.

 

It seems that many collectors of U.S. coins are concerned about the "FSB," "FBL" and "Full Steps" designations with our graded Mercs, Franklins and Jeffersons.

Isn't this all a result of poor coin design or engraving? When striking the coins, a single blow from the dies at normal striking force didn't "bring up" the design fully on these coins. Weren't the design flaws in these coins the result of having an area of high-relief on the opposite side of the coins? It seems so to me.

 

While I agree with your overall point that the strike designation does not mean the coin was well struck, I don't think you chose the best example. The 1964 saw over 1 billion nickels struck and the coin you showed actually has a pretty decent strike for that year. Here is a coin with a much more average strike for the date.



I think a better example would be a coin that has full steps from a year that most all of the coins were well struck but has an overall weak strike. Take a look at this 1941-D NGC MS67 6FS for example.



The pillars and windows are weak and undefined and the doors are barely visible and the coin exhibits significant die wear across the reverse, but there is no dispute, the steps are hammered.

 

@GDJMSP @Lehigh96

So, strike designations are just a tpg profit generator. lol

 

No, (some of) the strike designations pre-date the TPGs. Jefferson Nickel collectors long coveted nickels with complete step detail and were willing to pay premiums for those coins long before the TPGs started utilizing such designations. In the beginning, the TPGs were simply responding to customer demands.

To say that the TPGs use strike designations as a way to capture resubmissions is really a stretch IMO. Those dates that are rare for the strike designation are no different than conditional rarities with respect to grade; the TPGs didn't create the situation, they just happened.

 

A face-on image of a building like that is just tough to bring up fully when struck. There is also weakness in the main device on the obverse (Jefferson's ponytail). I think the original design was a 2/3-facing Monticello with trees.
That looked nice: