Although my grade was a little light... I was first to call proof. My gut said proof, but my brain really didnt. I only went with 62 because my 1950 PCGS PF63 looks better imo.
Not shocked at all. Looked like a proof from the beginning. I have a 1950 PR 65 that looks just like that. Not shocked in the slightest. Nice coin!
Hi @ Santinidollar, I stand corrected. Thank you for the “Best Answer” but I was WRONG! @bragator2 put me in my place. The only thing I was right about is that it is a nice coin. Oh! the shame, my first post on this board was “Erroneous on Both Counts”.
lol. I had no idea if you were correct or not and was completely playing around. It was an awesome post.
Hi @bragator2, Thanks for the kind words and encouragement. Not the first time my ego saw what it wanted to see, not what was there. I really did like your post. Guess a picture is worth a thousand words.
So, if you wrote that post you obviously know more about Franklins than probably anybody here. It was truly fascinating and I was in awe as I was reading it. In hindsight knowing it now a proof in the eyes of PCGS... is your opinion still the same (and therefore PCGS got it wrong)?
I felt it was PF65 at first glance...so many look just like it, and it's still a good looker, just not mirrored. I'm looking for the 58 MS trans. rev. to go along with my 59. I really don't have much interest in varieties which require strong mag. to identify them, but respect those who do. The 64 Kennedys with trans rev. are a similar item to the RDV-001a but still an item of lesser interest to most collectors and TPGs, but a nice novelty anyway. I doubt that these lesser variations add any value to the coin, but if you're a serious variety collector, it's a nice one to own.
Hi @bragator2, In answer to your question; No, PCGS (and other posters) got it right, I was wrong. As a matter of course, I went through my research images of Franklin Proofs to find a close reverse Proof die match to the OP’s coin. I found one that is reasonably similar and it is the middle image below. The top and bottom images illustrate how I came to my erroneous conclusion. I made a rooky mistake in not taking into consideration the resolution of the OP’s image. I was blinded by the rarity of a 1950-P RDV-001a. It took five years of research into Transitional Reverse Franklins for Dr. Wiles and ANACS to recognize and attribute the RDV-001a and RDV-001b varieties. To marginalize my own efforts by making such a sophomoric error is unacceptable to me. However, on the bright side, it has exposed the variety to fellow collectors who followed this post even if it was by mistake. On a side note: @Santinidollar – You might want to check the obverse of your coin. The middle image of the reverse PCGS# 83616260 (verifiable with TrueView) is actually a QDO obverse which commands a healthy premium. Your obverse image resolution does not permit identification but IMO it is worth a second look. @chascat – If by “I'm looking for the 58 MS trans. Rev….” you mean a Type 2 reverse, look on eBay. I have seen a few not identified as such and going for regular UNC prices. That is a real “Cherry Pick”. PS. Thank for the opportunity of redemption.
HOLY COW! In four posts you've managed to become my favorite member here. Phenomenal research and humility.
As someone not trained in viewing and recognizing the differences between die varieties, can you explain the difference between the RDV-001a and RDV-001b varieties? And if you could use photos that would be great.
Hi @Lehigh96, I am not sure about the etiquette of this Board. If I respond, I might be dangerously close to “hijacking” @Santinidollar’s thread. One blunder is enough. To prevent any unintended offense, I will start a new thread, “Franklin 1950-1951 Transitional Reverse.” Please look for my response in that thread. Sorry for any inconvenience.
The reason why some people guessed a bit low is one needs to remember that Franklin proofs prior to 1955 were quite poorly struck. I have a full set of pretty high grade Franklin proofs. It took me years to find a nice 1950, as most of them are incredibly grainy. I’ve posted my 1950 here a few times—it is a PR 65 CAC. It looks very similar to the OP coin—nice overall, but grainy fields. It is hard to find 1950s, without some graininess. It is a difficult coin to find.