Franklin Full Bell Lines for dummies.

My photo, just above here, is MS65 by the way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Perhaps PCGS thought the bottom set of lines was minted as FBL and the discounted the damage accordingly.
Looks like a 1949-S. Is it?

 

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.
It is a 1954-S. How could you ever tell from the reverse? Aren't they identical?
Sorry I couldn't confirm your guess!

 

I'm flabbergasted at the apparent uselessness of red book prices. This Franklin is listed at MS65 for $35 but the sale price is $215!

 

PCGS only requires that the bottom set of lines be full for the designation. The reason for this is that the weakness that plagues the series starts to the left of the crack on the bottom set of lines. Of course there are severe cases where the strike weakness extends into the top set of lines, but the methodology is that if the bottom set of lines are full then the top set must be full as well. Remember, PCGS allows marks across the lines as long as they don't disturb the continuity of the lines.

You ask if "true FBL" exist? Of course they do, I have shown some examples below where both sets of lines are completely full. These coins are graded by PCGS but would easily crossover to NGC.

1950 FHD PCGS MS66+ FBL



1954-D FHD PCGS MS66 FBL




The reason why people don't understand the application of the FBL designation is because they spend too much time looking at FBL coins and wondering how and why the coin got FBL and not enough time comparing those FBL coins to Non FBL coins. As I stated earlier, the strike weakness starts to the left of the crack on the bottom set of lines and gets progressively worse on many "S" mint coins where that weakness extends into the top set of lines. It is helpful to categorize these levels of weakness: Just Miss Strike Weakness, Typical Strike Weakness, Severe Strike Weakness.

Just Miss Strike Weakness: 1951-S FHD PCGS MS66+



The lines to the right of the crack are still full. If you look directly to the left of the crack, you can see the bell lines and then a little further to the left there is a patch where the continuity of the lines are broken by strike weakness which disqualifies this coin from the FBL designation. Notice that the top set of lines, though faint, are basically full on this coin. This coin perfectly shows why PCGS only considers the bottom set of lines when applying the designation. In addition, this coin is very well struck for the date/mm. The "S" mint coins from the fifties are the ones that are plagued by strike weakness. This is about as good as you can get for the date/mm.


Typical Strike Weakness: 1951-S FHD PCGS MS66+



Here we can see that the lines to the right of the crack are no longer full. The weakness extends from the right of the crack all the way over to above the F in HALF DOLLAR. Notice again that the top set of lines are still full. This is the stage where everyone can look at the coin and see without argument that the lines are not full. When comparing a FBL coin like the one you posted to this coin, the difference is plainly evident.


Severe Strike Weakness: 1952-S FHD PCGS MS67



This coin shows strike weakness that starts to the right of the crack, extends to the F, and has a vertical aspect that reaches into the upper set of lines. In addition, the area has a level of flatness that absent in the previous examples. The inclusion of this coin in the discussion is not to show that it isn't FBL, anyone could see that, rather, I would like you to look at the top set of lines. This coin has severe strike weakness yet the top set of lines are 90% full, which illustrates further why PCGS only considers the bottom set of lines in the application of the designation.


To the readers of this thread, the person I am responding to has me blocked and will not see this post. I would appreciate it if someone would be nice enough to quote this post so that he can see it.

 

From your photo, the bottom set of lines look like they may have left the die as ‘full’, however it appears that they may have taken a hit or two along the way, damaging the completeness of the bell lines.
I guessed it as a ‘49 because the later date Franklins from San Francisco can sometimes have more of a satin-like look to the fields than the 1949 coins. This is based exclusively on my personal observations. I’ve never read it anywhere.

 

Does it differentiate between FBL and non-FBL?

 

Yes, it says FBL

 

Excellent post!

 

Lehigh is exactly correct. I have been collecting FBL Franklins for about 18 months. I have a top 10 registry set with NGC. Occasionally, bag marks will preclude a coin from getting FBL designation, but generally it is the strike that is the problem. In particular, the San Francisco mint was very problematic. As was stated in an earlier reply that older presses caused weak strikes.

All in all, the TPGs do a good job of maintaining standards for FBL designation. Sure there are some that probably shouldn’t be FBL, but the photos originally posted on this thread were not nearly good enough to truly evaluate the bell lines.

 

Its got a bunch of scratches front & back, would that not cause the 64?

 

I agree

 

But NGC says it is.

 

Regarding the 54-D, is that doubling I see in UNUM? Or just the lighting?

 

I think it is the lighting, but I can double check to be sure.

 

Bought 1948D and 1963D (first and last years) NGC MS64 FBL. Pictures didn't do the coins justice so I took a chance. When I got the coins, full bell lines were clearly there.

 

Lots of good discussion and pictures of FBL from the standpoint of the quality of the strike and lines.

Not a whole lot of discussion about cuts and dings, and how they affect PCGS FBL grading. I have quite a number of Franklins, most of them being clearly yes or no on FBL. Then there are the ones that seem to have the lines that support FBL, but they have cuts and dings.

Could some Franklin experts tell me what to make of these cuts and dings? The first two images are of the same coin. It is a 1952-D and it is beautiful, particularly the obverse, certainly worthy of a submission. The lower set of bell lines, which is what PCGS wants to see, are clearly full, but there is that ding directly above the clapper.

I just don’t know how lenient PCGS is, on cuts and dings...

I hope you can make sense out of my pictures, I am certainly not much of a photographer.

 

Wow, I really screwed up the list of pictures. I don’t know how this happened, and I tried to delete the entire post and start over, but messed that up, too. There are five different coins, and I think you can look through and relate them to the pictures:

1. The 1952-D
2. A coin with a light cut to the left of the crack, just barely to the left of the clapper.
3. A coin with a long, smooshed area to the right of the crack.
4. A coin with a round dent to the right of the crack.
5. A coin with several sharp cuts, toward the left edge of the coin.

Sorry about the redundancy and confusion. I am new at posting things on this forum.

 

Welcome to CT.
Honest answer. The first coin could get FBL but it's not worth the cost to have graded. The rest of the coins are also not worth the cost.
Great images but you need to take one coin at a time and post full images of both sides of the coin. This will get you better answers to your questions.

 

Not sure why people have to see the entire coin in order to evaluate FBL, but OK. Here is the first coin. Picture of reverse does not show the real condition of the bell lines, so please refer to the earlier pictures. The question is, does the condition of the lower bell lines, directly over the clapper, disqualify it as FBL?