59 Franklin -toner

Hey guys, what are your overall thoughts and on grade? I don't usually buy $10 coins unless I'm stealin em lol but I thought this has very nice eye appeal so a robbery was committed

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For $10 you put the Jessie James to that seller. That's a lovely coin, nicely toned. It looks to be MS. Technically, at least MS64.

 

Nice piece...NT, maybe fbl, but not sure....somewhere in the MS 64 neighborhood.

 

Take me to your dealer!

 

Id say UNC Details, AT

 

Thanks guys, I'm hoping that one is a fbl. Here's another I picked up with it. Same price of course

 

Artificial toning as well, i do believe.

 

I feel like AT or NT those would do very well on feeBay...

 

Both nice looking coins with the top one maybe FBL . Were you thinking of getting them graded , as IMHO it would be cost prohibitive as the '59 looks like it may have been dipped and retoned . But I'd definitely put the '59 in my Franklin Dansco as it is a looker .

 

59 is nice, possible NT but if AT they did a pretty good job, 58 not FBL.
63 AT

 

Love that 1st coin!

 

If I need a throw in on a future sub I may add the 59 but aside that I don't feel.the need to slab these.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think both of those coins are AT. I think both coins are probably also AU sliders.

The two dates you have shown are very hard to find nicely toned. There are enough red flags with the toning, color, patterns, and price, that I would not buy them. There is no such thing as a free lunch - and buying a nicely (genuinely) toned, decent graded coin of those dates for $10 is just not something that happens unless there is something fishy going on.

 

Agreed, I understand wanting MS in the OP's, but they are AU with 'makeup on'.

 

Unless your dealer is a knothead, I think something is amiss with that coin at $10.

 

I'd take that 1st coin AT or not if I saw it for sale. It's a very nice looking coin.

 

Guys, it was an auction with bad pics so the price didnt surprise me. If these are at they're very good. When I saw them in hand I kept going back and forth on at or not. I may just throw at least the first one in my next pcgs sub just for giggles now though

 

You can't even define what you mean by "AT" in any way that would hold up to even a novice's cross-examination skills, so how can you say they're "AT?" But, then, neither can any of you...

 

Not entirely sure what drew your ire here, but I would define AT thusly:

"Toning which has been accelerated or created through the application of heat or chemicals, or other processes which are not consistent with traditional coin storage methods."

Commence your cross-examination.

 

Eddie, I agree with Jason, both coins have questionable toning. If you want to know why they look AT, feel free to ask. Based on my past history collecting rainbow toned Franklins, I have never seen a target toned coin from an album with turquoise at the peripheries. The orange to violet to turquoise progression is equally as strange. On the second coin, the combination of deep blue and violet is consistent with artificial toning methods, and like the other coin, the obverse toning is not a color scheme found on Franklin half dollars.