GTG 1950 Franklin Half Dollar PCGS

The luster in the TV closely resembles that of a 1964 Kennedy I have which has no-question MS-67 quality luster. That’s the standard I use.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The overall grade is most definitely not MS-67, but the luster alone is what is being discussed.

 

My problem with your logic is that eye appeal and luster are only two components of mint state grading. Both strike and surfaces are the others. When you give extreme amounts of "extra credit" in a couple of categories, you cheapen or completely disregard the others and water down the scale. It's like giving the kid who struggles with math extra credit based on other topics so he can make the cut.

 

It is fraudulent to intentionally change grading standards to weaken them when you offer a grading guarantee to avoid a pay out. Yes, sometimes grading is inconsistent and may not be intentional; however, the changes for some series have been fairly drastic and can only be the result of an intentional shift in standards. Franklins and Lib Nickels come to mind in gem and better. Yesterday's MS65 Franklins are regularly now found in MS66 and MS67 holders. Old MS65 liberty nickels are finding their way into MS66 holders. Don't get me started with MS65 saint double eagles. Take a look at auction archives. It is killing the market and creating confusion.

 

Is this correct that now you are accusing PCGS/NGC and the other accepted grading services of committing fraud?

 

Honest question, why the different name here than on CU as BillJones? If you aren't him my apologies but why post his coin pictures all the time if you aren't?

 

Let's see. I offer a warranty that your item is an "A" but not a "B." The warranty has no stated expiration. The coin really is a "B" and is submitted under the warranty later for a payout. It may have been a "B" instead of an "A" then, but it is an "A" now. Too bad for you. The standards can change over night.

What would you call it? At a minimum it sounds like a breach of warranty/contract. I would call it fraudulent whether actual (with intent) or constructive (without intent). If this were any industry other than for a luxury good there would be class action suits galore.

 

What difference does it make?

 

So you are saying you're accusing PCGS/NGC and the other accepted TPGs of fraud? Please give a direct answer

 

A lot of users use different names on different sites. For some it's a security thing and should be respected by others. It's not cool to question others on the topic. There are some things you just don't do on coin sites and this is one of them.

 

The O.P. coin is graded correctly .
Just my 2 Cent.

 

There are times when you refuse to give a straight answer, even after being asked to do so several times. Why should anyone else be beholden to giving you a straight answer?

 

Thank you Idhair. Yes, I am he. I am contributing my knownlege over here because there is a group over there who no longer appreciate what I have to offer them.

 

That is too bad that some of the people over there are like that.
We appreciate your content and plethora of great information, so keep posting here!

 

I thought I recognized the photos, but I just didn’t want to make an issue where there wasn’t one.

 

+1

 

I for one appreciate what you have contributed to this site.

 

66FBL

 

Type 2?

 

MS-65 PCGS