Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3446974, member: 19165&quot;]I skimmed through this thread at [USER=15309]@Lehigh96[/USER] &#039;s request, and I have to say it turned pretty ugly. I haven&#039;t posted much lately, simply because of how unpleasant things have become.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, welcome to the forum [USER=102620]@Springford CC[/USER] . Paul has been asking me questions and showing me coins from your burgeoning set, and it is becoming a very nice set!</p><p><br /></p><p>The problem with posting coins like this in a forum like this is that many people here have never held a gem Franklin. They&#039;ve never seen a 66+ FBL in person, and they don&#039;t really know much about Franklins. The people who do have more experience sometimes come attached with strong preconceived notions about Franklins, about TPGs, or about the evolution of grading. I&#039;m not discounting that experience, but grading coins today according to how the market was in 1985 is going to be an exercise in futility. I appreciate having strong opinions, but grading, collecting, and the hobby in general have evolved.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the coin in question, I&#039;ll say that is one of the most attractive 50&#039;s I&#039;ve ever seen. That toning is absolutely perfect. The eye appeal is absolutely worth a premium.</p><p><br /></p><p>The strike shows some weakness on Pass and Stow, but overall seems crisp. Both sets of bell lines appear strong and complete. I think it is enough to meet even my stringent standards (I will not call a coin FBL unless both lines are complete, per the NGC standard. PCGS and CAC, as you know, only look at the bottom set of lines.)</p><p><br /></p><p>The luster, as Paul mentioned earlier in the thread, also appears to be quite strong (not really a surprise on 1950, they tend to have some of the best luster in the entire series.) The character of the luster on this coin appears to be of the bright and flashy type - especially as seen in the PCGS trueview <a href="https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36098981" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36098981" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36098981</a> (Paul&#039;s picture and the Heritage picture struggle to capture the luster as well as I think it probably looks in hand). What the folks in this thread don&#039;t seem to realize is how much strong luster really helps the grade (you may disagree or agree with how much you think it should help the grade - the fact of the matter is that PCGS rewards strong luster).</p><p><br /></p><p>Contact marks appear minimal - there are a couple of marks (especially the one on his collar, and the 1), but they are not in prime focal areas. There are a few wispy marks on the bell, but they are minor.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is certainly vastly superior to the average 65, and well into the 66 territory. And this is one of the big problems with the inexperience that I mentioned - many of the people here have never really examined a 65 or 66 or 67 Franklin (many of the beginners on CoinTalk have never really examined a 65 or 66 of any series, which is fine, they just have more opportunities for learning). Many people haven&#039;t spent the time building a gem certified Franklin set, and they simply just don&#039;t know what they are talking about. Certainly, there are quite a few knowledgeable people posting here, and this does not apply to them. However, anyone who looks at this coin and seriously says 64 needs to read a grading book, and then needs to look at a thousand gem certified coins. (Everyone, including the experienced people, should go right now to the Heritage archives, and seriously look at 15 1950 Franklin halves graded 65, and 15 graded 66. Tell me which one this coin matches better)</p><p><br /></p><p>The issue for me with this coin is the high point pitting on Franklin&#039;s jaw. I know we&#039;ve had this conversation several times before: I generally dislike the high point pitting, and think it should limit the grade. There are several areas where I tend to be more strict than TPGs, because they are personal preferences (such as fingerprints). Some collectors, and, more importantly, the TPGs don&#039;t mind the high point pitting and don&#039;t limit the grade because of it.</p><p><br /></p><p>If I accept the high point pitting, as PCGS does, then this coin is clearly, no questions asked, easily a 66 FBL.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is also, clearly, no questions asked, not a 67. I need a clean bell without those wispy marks to make 67, and there is too much high point pitting for a 67 - even if you do accept it at 66. This coin here is a solid 67: <a href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms67-full-bell-lines-pcgs/a/1238-4971.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms67-full-bell-lines-pcgs/a/1238-4971.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515" rel="nofollow">https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms67-full-bell-lines-pcgs/a/1238-4971.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515</a></p><p><br /></p><p>So the question comes down to, does it deserve the +? The plus is what prompts the price jump. I&#039;ll be honest, I struggle with Pluses. I&#039;m not a fan of the concept in general, and consistently grading to that level of detail is almost impossible. (I&#039;m not sure if you know this or not, but CAC ignores the Plus - they are only certifying that it is an A or B for a 66. As I mentioned, this is clearly a solid 66, hence the CAC).</p><p><br /></p><p>Looking at Heritage, there are 66&#039;s that compare favorably to this coin, there are 66+&#039;s that are cleaner than this coin. If you compare the OP&#039;s coin to this one below, I&#039;d say this other one is more accurately a 66+. It lacks the high point pitting, has less marks, and just barely misses a 67. The strong eye appeal is probably what pushed the original coin into the 66+ category: <a href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms66-full-bell-lines-pcgs-cac-pcgs-population-249-14-and-33-1-ngc-census-50-3-and-4-0-cdn-wsl-price/a/1239-7777.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms66-full-bell-lines-pcgs-cac-pcgs-population-249-14-and-33-1-ngc-census-50-3-and-4-0-cdn-wsl-price/a/1239-7777.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515" rel="nofollow">https://coins.ha.com/itm/franklin-half-dollars/half-dollars/1950-50c-ms66-full-bell-lines-pcgs-cac-pcgs-population-249-14-and-33-1-ngc-census-50-3-and-4-0-cdn-wsl-price/a/1239-7777.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515</a></p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s a lot of words to say: I&#039;d call it a solid 66FBL, with low confidence on the plus. I&#039;m not against it, but I&#039;d much rather call it a 66* FBL, and acknowledge its superior eye appeal.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the price, that price is in line with what other 66+FBL CAC&#039;s have been getting. The market is a bit softer now, but the eye appeal makes up for it. Sure, you can take the quick profit - but you have to weigh that against whether you&#039;ll ever find another one as attractive as this. And the answer is, probably not. I&#039;d keep the coin, and I&#039;d be happy with it.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in