Type II Franklin Halves

From what I have gathered there are 3 dates that have the Type II designation. First is the 1956 Proof. These coins were found in proof sets of that year. The Type I proof looks like the same reverse used on all business strikes in the Franklin series and all the proofs from 56 and earlier. Later in the year, the mint switch the dies to make them more pronounced and detailed. These are the type II variety and found on all proofs after 56.

The other two coins are the 1958 and 1959 UNCs/business strikes. It is thought that many of the proof dies were mistakenly mixed in with the business strike dies which resulted in this type. Another theory that has been presented has been that the reject proof dies were purposely used to mint these. This was a way to decrease waste and save money as the dies were still usable. The handful of 58 Type II's that I have found, I found searching through many coin shows and coin shops. They 59 Type II is much more common with some estimates that half of 6.2 million minted were the Type II variety. I have about a dozen or so of these and most were found in 59 mint sets.

I wanted to use this thread to not only introduce the Type II variety Franklins but also to introduce two of my coins that I got back from NGC today with a variety of the type II variety. These were found on the 1959 halfs. These are the FS801 DDR found in Cherrypickers. For those of you who don't collect these, the type II is easily found by the naked eye. These can be very easily cherrypicked at shows and shops since most are not looking for this variety. In order to find the FS801, you need to look a little more closely, but the doubling is clear as day and cannot be missed. I found these two at two different tables at a show I attended. I tried to take some close up pics to assist with diagnostics so please bear with my poor photography skills. I hope you can see what I am referring to.

This is the first one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Second coin

 

thanks for the imformative post very cool. where do i look for the doubling?

 

What you are looking at are three areas that I have pointed out which are easy to spot and make determining this variety very easy. The first circle is around the right bell handle. This is clearly doubled and has a slightly upward separation from where the handle should be. Also, as the second arrow points to, but the pics don't show that well is a very obvious line or separation on the horizontal portion of the bell handle. Lastly, the Eagle itself. On a Type 1, there are 4-5 feathers on the left wing, but on a type II there are 3 bold and distinct feathers. This diagnostic makes is very easy to see with the naked eye and easy to cherrypick. But the DDR has an "extra" feather located between the 1st and 2nd left most feathers. As one person noted, almost looks like a typeII was struck over a type I. I will try to post additional pics later on this week. Thanks for looking and make sure you look at all your 59 Franklin halfs....you could find a gem! Good luck. :hail:

 

<<As one person noted, almost looks like a typeII was struck over a type I.>>

"Almost looks"? This is from a class III doubled die made from both type I and type II hubs. The present CPG has the CONECA attribution wrong.

 

Joe,

Congrats on these grading MS64FBL! If one half of the 1959 mintage is Type II, then the TPGs really need to attribute it. Regarding the 1959 DDR, I am thinking that that there may be more than one type. As you know, I have a 1959 DDR attributed by ICG; it looks exactly like the ones you posted. However, I have two 1959 mint sets in which the right bell handle and E PLURIBUS UNUM are clearly doubled but the eagle is the "strong eagle" with no visible doubling. I will try to post some pics but it is hard when the coins are still in the cellophane.

TC

 

It is amazing to me that any of these would get an FBL designation. TC

 

Joe this is a very neat thread, but I have to agree with TC, it could just be your photos, but I'm not seeing either one of these sweet coins to be a candidate for a FBL designation.

 

Agreed that they do not look FBL from those photo's but it's because the lack of lighting in the bottom of the bell. That's not the lines fading away it's the light fading away.

Nice coins and congrates on the grades and find

 

Good start, but you failed to mention that the 1956 Type 1 and Type 2 proofs differ by the number of separated feathers shown on the eagle’s right wing.

Other than that great post!

Edit: my apologies, I see that you have added this point.

 

I know that there have been mintage estimates for the 1958 and 1959 Type II Franklins. Has anyone heard of an estimated mintage for the 1959 DDR Franklin? Thanks, TC

 

<<I know that there have been mintage estimates for the 1958 and 1959 Type II Franklins. Has anyone heard of an estimated mintage for the 1959 DDR Franklin? Thanks, TC >>

The late great Bill Edwards estimated that the mintage was 93,000 or 1 1/2% of the total mintage.

This was all from 1 die only. It was buffed before first use, presumeably to remove traces of doubling. It was later buufed again and put back in production. What I find interesting here is that somebody recognized a doubled die before first use and decided to repair and use it anyway.

 

I gotta say that I didn't think that they would qualify as FBL either, but obviously these are people who know a little more about grading than I do. The lines are not that strong, which may be slightly indicative of the strike. After a closer look the lines are all there intact, but just weak.

 

Lovin' the new signiture line Joe and it may be the bourbon, but I'm seein' the fbL's........

 

Yep, Ambien does the trick too....but without the hangover!

 

Message to Proofartoncoins: Why aren't the type II reverses recognized in Cherrypickers? And why don't the TPGs recognize these very obvious varieties?

 

'fartoncoins? Where's Spock?

 

I learn something new every day, and today that is because of YOU! - Kisses!

 

Jake - Can I add this to the Museum?

Ruben

 

Jake? who the heck is Jake?

Joe....