GTG: 1951 Franklin half

That’s what I was thinking. Anyone know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I looked it up. They did. @Santinidollar What is your thought? You have it in hand.

 

Anyone know what standard ANACS used? We know that PCGS and NGC used different standards.

 

MS 65

 

I see the reveal...looks nice for a 64

@ldhair I found this from an NGC thread (not sure when those standards were used though):
"ANACS requires both sets of lines on the bell to be complete and clear, except for the small area just to the left of the on the upper set, right next to the crack of the bell, (this tiny area is always weak). Marks or cuts that break the lines, unless very small, will keep the coin from being designated as FBL."

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topi...res both sets of,from being designated as FBL.

 

It’s on the border. I can see where they could conceivably say no FBL, especially in the hands of a strict grader. It might pass today.

 

Wow. Thank you for the link to that cool old thread. Several members here posted in that thread 12 years ago. I actually remember reading it back then. It's great that so many of the images are still showing.
I'm still wondering when ANACS started actually putting it on the label. I'm thinking they didn't at first. This guy will know. @Conder101

 

Either way, it's a nice looking BUGS BUNNY.

 

Exactly. It is an attractive Bugs Bunny. Many of them don’t have that level of eye appeal. I think it is slightly undergraded—was pretty sure of 65. However, it is fine the way it is—an choice, attractive coin.

 

Nope. Even if half of the marks were on the holder and not on the coin, it doesn’t have what it takes to grade higher than MS65.

 

I was going to say 65 BB NoFBL, as I figured by today's grading it could possibly go 66, but ANACS was a very conservative TPG when this was graded. But I wouldn't have guessed 64. Nice coin.