Guess the grade and TPG 1952 Franklin

[Dwaine]

[rbrown4]

Nice toning on the obverse. The brightness of the reverse image makes it difficult for me to estimate a grade. Based on the slight wear that I see on the Obverse, cheek and hair I would say definite AU 58 to 55. Can not tell much about the Reverse like lettering, bands etc.

 

Rey

[physics-fan3.14]

I don't think that's wear, Rey, I think thats just toning breaks on the high points. I can't really tell based on the pictures, but it looks MS-64 maybe? If it is in a PCGS holder, like it looks like, I will go with MS-64 FBL. NGC would not call this FBL, but PCGS only uses the lower set, which appear full.

[Dwaine]

 

[harvey8542]

Very nice Dwaine

[rbrown4]

Wow,

 

Definitely a learning experience for me. Nice coin Dwaine, sorry for the low grade estimate.

 

Rey

[ant]

i see the ms64 but not the fbl

[Dwaine]

Not sure why the lighting was so bad on the reverse. I apoligize about that. I would not call this FBL as the top lines has a mark through them. I love the obverse but the reverse is not all that great especially with the one dark spot between the two sets of lines.

[SkyMan]

That is a very INTERESTING color for a '52-D. I suspect that is why the coin is in an ANACS slab. Normally '52-D's are butt-ugly. They will tone up a dull gray or brown. Here's my '52-D, and believe or not, it's actually a nice one for the date/mm.

 

 

Your first obverse image made me think immediately of AT, the second obverse image mutes the colors down quite a bit and MAY be NT. The colors per se are not inacurate on the Franklin series as a whole, but they are definitely NOT what one would expect on a 1952-D. Also, the screaming white reverse with a fairly seriously toned obverse is a warning marker for Franklins. Generally you'll see it more often in the 1959-63 years as the mint sets of those years were flatpacks and thus didn't give the classic mint set toning one can find with Franklins. One sided toned Franklins are common, but the untoned side tends to be a bit more muted. The technical grade seems reasonable. FWIW, there is a RPM variant that you might check to see if you have it.

[physics-fan3.14]

Not sure why the lighting was so bad on the reverse. I apoligize about that. I would not call this FBL as the top lines has a mark through them. I love the obverse but the reverse is not all that great especially with the one dark spot between the two sets of lines.

 

I'm not really sure about ANACS FBL standards, but they are apparently similar to PCGS'. I know that I have an old holder ANACS that they labelled FBL that I wouldn't exactly agree with as well. NGC allows some marks to the bell lines and will still call it FBL, I know I have one coin (the date escapes me at the moment) that has a decent hit to the bell lines that NGC still called FBL. I suppose I don't mind this too much, if the lines are otherwise excellent, but overall I prefer no hits to the lines. This is still better than PCGS, which only looks at half of the lines for the designation. That is bogus! I am not sure of PCGS' policy as far as hits are concerned on the lines.

 

Your coin not only appears to have a couple of marks on the lines, but the upper set of lines is very weak. The 1952D is one of the strongest struck dates in the entire series, so a FBL of that date should have very strong lines, on both sets. The 1952 is early in the series, the master hub was just starting to show noticeable wear, so most of the detail is still present. Also, the early D mints, 1951-1954, all share similar characteristics - a very good strike being one of them.

[PCcoins]

Yes, quite unusual toning on that 52. I like it but not convinced its natural. I agree with skyman that it probably wouldn't make it into a NGC slab. But nice none the less. (thumbs u