Roosevelt Dime GTG!

I think it depends on who you talk to, but Ok.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks 65. Not FT

 

65

 

Time for the big reveal!

NGC called this one 66 PL.

There were quite a few votes for 64. 64 is just too low for this coin. I'm not sure if you've ever seen a 64 Roosevelt, but there are quite a few marks of reasonable size on a 64. On this coin, the fields are remarkably clean. There are some light little tickmarks on his face, and a few small marks on the torch.

I personally like this one best at 65+. It looks like nearly 50% of you called it a 65.

And, I'm glad that almost all of you identified that this does not have full torch lines.

 

I'll tell you...pull it out of that plastic holder and spend it!

 

I'm late but guessed 65, and of course PL as it is yours.

 

I had settled on 66 before seeing the reveal. very few marks. neat coin and congrats on the addition to the PL set .

 

I voted MS 65 no FT. Here's NGC's definition of FB, FT: https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6812/learn-grading-dimes/
According to NGC in order to be FT it must also be FB or FSB.

 

The point of that article is to show how they are different. Merc dimes need only the horizontals because they are in higher relief than the verticals. If the bands are split, there is no doubt that the fasces will also be split. Roosevelts need both the horizontals and the verticals, because the bands are in lower relief. If the bands are split, it isn't necessarily true that all of the fasces will be split. Thus, the different designation FB vs. FT.

The reason that I prefer NGC to PCGS for strike designations is because they are universally more strict. PCGS uses FB because *they only look at the bands*, even on Roosevelts. They aren't certifying a full torch, they are only looking at the bands. On a Roosevelt, it is very possible and quite common to be Full Bands but NOT Full Torch: https://www.pcgs.com/news/pcgs-to-add-full-bands-designation-for-roosevelt-dimes

 

I was at 66 no ft before the reveal just a tiny bit too much cheek chatter for higher great luster but not enough definition on the reverse for ft

 

Thank you. I didn't realize that the Coinweek article contained the NGC info that I posted. I only posted it for educational reasons. I hoped a few members wood look at the article. It seems that in other threads about Roosevelt dimes a lot of people don't understand what the FT designation is about. Also, I thought the top pic was a little nicer than the second one.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I guessed 65. The 1st obverse picture looks the best IMO, the second one seems to make the coin appear to have some very very slight wear.