GTG 1950 Franklin Half Dollar PCGS

I agree with pretty much most of what you state. Everything is a construct even the language we are using. Now I have not been in the game long enough to have a opinion about grading one way or the other, yet. But, and I am not putting words in anyone's mouth, to use your shooting target as an example some people think that the target has been moved by a few people when it come to grading. Ya see in target shooting the size of the red dot in the center and the rings on the target, while all constructs, are uniform so that in competitions the targets are scored or graded. These scores can be compared across decades of shooters. The standards of the targets are published for all to see. My analogy is this, some people think that other people are changing the size of the red dot and the rings on the target so that the scores are higher than they otherwise should be. Those people that have changed the target parameters have not published those changes and so there is a conflict. Whether those changes are deliberate, or random or whatever, some people think that a small group have co-opted the target standards for their personnel benefit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well said, Razz.

 

+1
Using @baseball21 theory the target (center dot) is now three times the size it was 15 years ago.. That's not grading, it is merely fluffing there own product.

 

Even with the same target you wouldn’t really be able to get a true comparison to comparison. Gun and ammo technology as well as the gun sights have improved over the decade so you would expect more recent shooters to have better scores. Things generally do improve, very few Olympic records are the same today as they were 30 years ago.

If we apply this to grading the knowledge of coins, grading, how they were made etc has continued to improve over time and will continue to do so in the future. This has caused some evolution and tweaking to grading over the years and will continue to do so in the future.

Grading isn’t even an apples to apples comparison as there are more grades now than there were decades ago so we are rounding things a lot less. The overall changes are no where near what some people try and say they were. Most things today would be the same as back then and a fair number would even downgrade or be details coins and that includes even the ANA slabs of the early days and all others.

 

I agree with all the 66 FBL people.

 

I would have thought so too but at least for NRA precision pistol shooting the all time record is 2680 out of 2700...set in 1974... Now if I could only paste the link...oh well easy enough to Google...

 

That record holders advice would mean a lot more than someone saying he’s doing it wrong because decades ago it was done this way.

Every rule has exceptions. That said exceptions prove it in the real world at the highest level not on keyboards or the sidelines as some have attempted.

 

Very interesting discussion. I am Lehigh’s (Paul’s) brother. I’m relatively new to collecting coins, but have a six sigma black belt designation in my profession. I agree with the commentary about accuracy, precision, and repeatability of the measurement system.

Just from reading this this thread it harkens the point of subjectivity in the measurement system. Clearly there are a number of avid collectors/dealers commenting here. The range of opinions was from MS64 to MS67 FBL. That in itself speaks to the subjectivity. For example let’s say there is only one surface mark, does the position of that mark matter? Does the size of the mark matter? If they do then there has to be subjectivity. It’s not the same as weighing 1,000 kilos which either is or is not 1,000 kolos.

In some regards coin collecting especially toned coins is more like collecting art. In that regard, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Further, market price is based on many factors for all types of collectibles. The sample sizes referenced in this thread are too small to drawl a conclusive determination on an appropriate price range. My guess is the auction marketplace for coins in this grade and price range are pretty small and will vary substantially.

As for overall market pricing, I’m sure everyone has seen Pawn Stars. From that show it is clear that most collectibles have seen price depreciation since the 2008 recession. Blaming grade inflation on price devaluation seems off, but I’ll admit I’m a novice in that regard.

What I can say about this coin is compared to others in MS65 holders I have, the difference is clear. So unless all my MS 65s are 64s and so forth, then all that matters is there a clear difference in the quality of the coins between grades. So at this point, if TPGs have inflated their grades, the train has left the station and it’s not coming back. By today standards the coin is graded fairly. I’d say if you have a coin in an old holder that by today’s standards would grade higher, get it regraded.

Much of this debate about the TPGs changing the rules is like complaining that baseball doesn’t use a dead ball anymore so modern era home run stats are bogus. As far as fraud and grade inflation go, the institutions of higher learning in the United States are far more guilty of selling an overrated overpriced POS wrapped in a sheepskin that our children will spend a lifetime trying to pay back. Now there is the real fraud.

Regards, it was a fun read. I will finish with noting I’ve already received an offer to buy the coin at a significant profit.

 

I agree with everything you said especially the part about overrated overpriced degrees, but that is a discussion for another thread preferably in the General Discussion thread.

 

Welcome to CoinTalk, beautiful coins thus far.

 

I am still trying to figure out your statement about bag marks?

Why did the TPG's we know today come about? I mean really what was the objective? Was it to take advantage and add the reality that it has to be so complicated?
Grading today has turned into a fluctuation of the market, not a true opinion of what grading used to be. I take pride in coins that I find truly Mint State, not saying that the coin in question isn't MS. Yes, it has a lot of flash and Yes, the amount of contact it received determines the higher grades, Once that coin left the press it began to receive circulation. This area is left for grades between 64 and 60.
What is expected to be gem is a coin like the one you have MS65. I gave it a plus for it's originality. But as far as focal point distraction this coin was most likely graded at least a point less in the past.
Yes, coins can be like art for the elite, those that will buy an over graded coin just because it says 66+ and has color, add in the CAC? That only says that your dollar means more than your opinion.

When the coin bug hit me I found fun/ and passion in trying to find examples of coins with truly original surfaces, coins like these don't deserve the accolade.

But they are great for that registry set.

Welcome aboard Paul's Brother. @Springford CC
Named my Son Paul. He is a very smart and talented fella.

 

I skimmed through this thread at @Lehigh96 's request, and I have to say it turned pretty ugly. I haven't posted much lately, simply because of how unpleasant things have become.

First, welcome to the forum @Springford CC . Paul has been asking me questions and showing me coins from your burgeoning set, and it is becoming a very nice set!

The problem with posting coins like this in a forum like this is that many people here have never held a gem Franklin. They've never seen a 66+ FBL in person, and they don't really know much about Franklins. The people who do have more experience sometimes come attached with strong preconceived notions about Franklins, about TPGs, or about the evolution of grading. I'm not discounting that experience, but grading coins today according to how the market was in 1985 is going to be an exercise in futility. I appreciate having strong opinions, but grading, collecting, and the hobby in general have evolved.

As for the coin in question, I'll say that is one of the most attractive 50's I've ever seen. That toning is absolutely perfect. The eye appeal is absolutely worth a premium.

The strike shows some weakness on Pass and Stow, but overall seems crisp. Both sets of bell lines appear strong and complete. I think it is enough to meet even my stringent standards (I will not call a coin FBL unless both lines are complete, per the NGC standard. PCGS and CAC, as you know, only look at the bottom set of lines.)

The luster, as Paul mentioned earlier in the thread, also appears to be quite strong (not really a surprise on 1950, they tend to have some of the best luster in the entire series.) The character of the luster on this coin appears to be of the bright and flashy type - especially as seen in the PCGS trueview https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36098981 (Paul's picture and the Heritage picture struggle to capture the luster as well as I think it probably looks in hand). What the folks in this thread don't seem to realize is how much strong luster really helps the grade (you may disagree or agree with how much you think it should help the grade - the fact of the matter is that PCGS rewards strong luster).

Contact marks appear minimal - there are a couple of marks (especially the one on his collar, and the 1), but they are not in prime focal areas. There are a few wispy marks on the bell, but they are minor.

This is certainly vastly superior to the average 65, and well into the 66 territory. And this is one of the big problems with the inexperience that I mentioned - many of the people here have never really examined a 65 or 66 or 67 Franklin (many of the beginners on CoinTalk have never really examined a 65 or 66 of any series, which is fine, they just have more opportunities for learning). Many people haven't spent the time building a gem certified Franklin set, and they simply just don't know what they are talking about. Certainly, there are quite a few knowledgeable people posting here, and this does not apply to them. However, anyone who looks at this coin and seriously says 64 needs to read a grading book, and then needs to look at a thousand gem certified coins. (Everyone, including the experienced people, should go right now to the Heritage archives, and seriously look at 15 1950 Franklin halves graded 65, and 15 graded 66. Tell me which one this coin matches better)

The issue for me with this coin is the high point pitting on Franklin's jaw. I know we've had this conversation several times before: I generally dislike the high point pitting, and think it should limit the grade. There are several areas where I tend to be more strict than TPGs, because they are personal preferences (such as fingerprints). Some collectors, and, more importantly, the TPGs don't mind the high point pitting and don't limit the grade because of it.

If I accept the high point pitting, as PCGS does, then this coin is clearly, no questions asked, easily a 66 FBL.

It is also, clearly, no questions asked, not a 67. I need a clean bell without those wispy marks to make 67, and there is too much high point pitting for a 67 - even if you do accept it at 66. This coin here is a solid 67: https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-h...s/a/1238-4971.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

So the question comes down to, does it deserve the +? The plus is what prompts the price jump. I'll be honest, I struggle with Pluses. I'm not a fan of the concept in general, and consistently grading to that level of detail is almost impossible. (I'm not sure if you know this or not, but CAC ignores the Plus - they are only certifying that it is an A or B for a 66. As I mentioned, this is clearly a solid 66, hence the CAC).

Looking at Heritage, there are 66's that compare favorably to this coin, there are 66+'s that are cleaner than this coin. If you compare the OP's coin to this one below, I'd say this other one is more accurately a 66+. It lacks the high point pitting, has less marks, and just barely misses a 67. The strong eye appeal is probably what pushed the original coin into the 66+ category: https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-h...9-7777.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

That's a lot of words to say: I'd call it a solid 66FBL, with low confidence on the plus. I'm not against it, but I'd much rather call it a 66* FBL, and acknowledge its superior eye appeal.

As for the price, that price is in line with what other 66+FBL CAC's have been getting. The market is a bit softer now, but the eye appeal makes up for it. Sure, you can take the quick profit - but you have to weigh that against whether you'll ever find another one as attractive as this. And the answer is, probably not. I'd keep the coin, and I'd be happy with it.