Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 714027, member: 19165&quot;]The Prooflike Franklin</p><p><br /></p><p>Forget what you’ve heard of the rarity of the 1953S with Full Bell Lines. Forget what you’ve heard of the scarcity of Gem well struck Franklin’s of any date. Forget what you’ve heard of the paucity of beautifully toned Franklins. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Prooflike Franklin makes them all seem common. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are three dates of Franklin currently known with prooflike surfaces, although only two of them have been so designated by NGC. The three dates are 1954S, 1959, and 1949S – although only the ’59 and ‘49S have been given the scarce “PL” designation. The 1954S was sold by Heritage in astounding collection of prooflike coins auctioned in 2003, graded NGC MS66*. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are three prooflike 1959’s designated by NGC – 2 in MS-64PL, 1 in MS-65PL; two of these are owned by board members here on NGC. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago (see here: <a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t72184/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t72184/">What You Need to Know about the Type II Reverse Franklin</a> ), all of the 1959 prooflike coins are of the Type II reverse type. The leading current theory is that the proof die was polished, intending to be used for proof coinage. Through a lucky accident, it was instead used on business strike coinage. Three things distinguish these prooflikes from true proofs – first, the dies were not finished. They were not fully polished to the level an actual proof die would have been. Second, the planchets struck were not polished like a true proof coin would have been before striking. Third, the coins were only struck once at normal pressure. Proof coins, by definition, must be struck at least twice, and at higher pressure than normal coins. The 1959 prooflikes have gorgeous mirrors, smooth fields, and amazing strikes, but they are not true proofs. Some of the 1959 Type II’s are semi-prooflike, struck after the prooflike coins by dies which had begun to loose some of their polish; I own one of these semi-pl coins. </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk68/physicsfan/Franklins/1959NGCMS-65PL.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>The lone MS-65PL, image courtesy of coinmain1794</p><p><br /></p><p>Far more mysterious is the 1949S prooflike. There is no easy and obvious explanation for its existence, and the look and feel of these gorgeous coins is markedly different. Where the 1959 has smooth and deep mirrors, the 1949S has a polished feel. The 1949S PL is characterized by a good deal of die polish. Some find this unattractive, I do not. There are several theories as to the reason these were made, and I’m sure some of you have heard variations of these. The first theory is that these were intended to be branch mint proofs, but that is highly unlikely. The second, most common theory is that these were intended to be special presentation pieces for the ANA convention, which was held in San Francisco that year. This theory is also highly unlikely – especially when you realize that prooflikes occurred in various years throughout the 40’s and 50’s on San Francisco minted coins, on many different denominations. These were not presentation pieces – there would have been some supporting documentation for their creation. </p><p><br /></p><p>No, these coins were most likely just merely lucky accidents. Some operator polished the dies, and the first few coins struck were these gorgeous, incredibly rare prooflike coins. There are just 12 graded by NGC, and there is a very real possibility that this number includes duplicates and resubmissions.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I recently was fortunate enough to purchase one of these gorgeous beauties – a 1949S graded NGC MS-64PL. On my coin, the mirrors are deep and genuine; the surfaces are reflective and amazing. Its been a long time since a Franklin has taken me by surprise as much as this coin did. I was unprepared for the look of the coin, and the unique beauty it holds. The strike is incredible also – while Franklin is often called baldy, there is no mistaking that he has a full head of hair on this coin. There is hair detail I have never seen before on a Franklin, the letters on the bell are clear and distinct – even the small text at the top of the bell which is normally an indistinct, vague, garbled jumble of letters. The bell lines are amazingly bold and clear – why this did not receive the FBL designation is a mystery to me. There is some speckled toning present on both sides which resembles mint set toning. I find it attractive, although it possibly could interfere with the affect of the prooflike surfaces. The coin is overall mark-free, with little to no bagmarks or disturbances. The only exception to this is a small patch which appears to have been struck through at the base of his bust. The reverse is amazingly smooth. The characteristic die polish lines are scattered over both sides, but are not distracting. I am left wondering why this coin didn’t receive a 65. Honestly, NGC really dropped the ball with this one – their 64PL really should be a 65 FBL PL. </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk68/physicsfan/Franklins/JPA831obverse.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk68/physicsfan/Franklins/JPA831reverse.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Another picture, with a bit different lighting, to show the die polish on this coin. All 1949S prooflikes have heavy die polish lines. </p><p><img src="http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk68/physicsfan/Franklins/JPA831obverse3.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>So, what do you think of my new purchase?[/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