Well, I'm Back

[JIM F.]

While you were away, I also picked up these guys.

 

 

Plus a couple additional 1950 PF-65 CAM Franklins. Glad I didn't have to bid against you!

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Ooh, that PL is a nice one. Got better pics of it?

[JIM F.]

 

Got this one (and the 41-S Merc PL's) from coinman.

 

See what you missed out on!

 

Welcome back.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

Love the Gem PL Key date 49-S!! JA liked it, TOO.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The die polish lines on the 49-S Rev are just MONSTER!

[physics-fan3.14]

The die polish lines on the 49-S Rev are just MONSTER!

 

It is a characteristic of (almost) all 40's era PL's that they have tons of die polish. I have a couple of exceptions, but especially the S mint's show the die polish.

[jom]

The grade? NGC MS-65 FBL. But the surprise: IT HAS A CAC STICKER!. Yet again, I have been disappointed by CAC. Not only do those gashes automatically preclude a FBL (I doubt few, if any, collectors would argue that), but in my opinion, they also downgrade the coin to a 64 (which is more up for debate).

 

It's possibly you already know this but the CAC stickers does NOT endorse strike designations as far as I know. So they just think it's a 65.

 

Besides that you know the series well enough to decide for yourself whether you want the coin so the sticker probably doesn't do you any good anyway! No reason to be disappointed, IMO.

 

Like I said in the other thread...glad to have ya back!

 

jom

[JIM F.]

The die polish lines on the 49-S Rev are just MONSTER!

 

It is a characteristic of (almost) all 40's era PL's that they have tons of die polish. I have a couple of exceptions, but especially the S mint's show the die polish.

 

When you are tired of those PL's you have, just let me know.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

The grade? NGC MS-65 FBL. But the surprise: IT HAS A CAC STICKER!. Yet again, I have been disappointed by CAC. Not only do those gashes automatically preclude a FBL (I doubt few, if any, collectors would argue that), but in my opinion, they also downgrade the coin to a 64 (which is more up for debate).

 

It's possibly you already know this but the CAC stickers does NOT endorse strike designations as far as I know. So they just think it's a 65.

 

Besides that you know the series well enough to decide for yourself whether you want the coin so the sticker probably doesn't do you any good anyway! No reason to be disappointed, IMO.

 

Like I said in the other thread...glad to have ya back!

 

jom

 

Actually, the CAC sticker does endorse the strike designations. At the very least, it endorses FBL (they even have a reference set and an article on their website about it.). Unfortunately, they use PCGS' description and only require the bottom set of lines to be full and complete (and thus don't mean anything to me). Unfortunatelier, the bottom set of lines on this coin are decidedly not complete.

[jom]

Actually, the CAC sticker does endorse the strike designations.

 

OK, I'm confused again. I've been told numerous times just the last few months they do NOT endorse strike des. I need to go research this again....

 

jom

[WoodenJefferson]

I oh so wanted to see an "S" above the bell...but alas, another nice Philly. The marks are sort of hidden from the focal area, but once you see them, it's like they look 10 times larger.

 

Your posting style never bothered me, I guess not true with everyone, but a lot of those posters you disagreed with, are no longer here either.

 

Glad you found a port in the storm.

 

~Woody~

 

 

[jom]

Actually, the CAC sticker does endorse the strike designations. At the very least, it endorses FBL (they even have a reference set and an article on their website about it.).

 

Yes, they do have that...I found it. However, that does NOT mean that when they Green Beaned the OP Franklin they thought it was a FBL. It is possible (and I need to get this clarified) that it only meant that CAC felt the coin was an "A" or "B" MS65.

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

Actually, the CAC sticker does endorse the strike designations. At the very least, it endorses FBL (they even have a reference set and an article on their website about it.).

 

Yes, they do have that...I found it. However, that does NOT mean that when they Green Beaned the OP Franklin they thought it was a FBL. It is possible (and I need to get this clarified) that it only meant that CAC felt the coin was an "A" or "B" MS65.

 

jom

 

It is my understanding that when they sticker a FBL, they are endorsing the FBL.

[WinstonWare]

Good to see you back!

[jom]

Actually, the CAC sticker does endorse the strike designations. At the very least, it endorses FBL (they even have a reference set and an article on their website about it.).

 

Yes, they do have that...I found it. However, that does NOT mean that when they Green Beaned the OP Franklin they thought it was a FBL. It is possible (and I need to get this clarified) that it only meant that CAC felt the coin was an "A" or "B" MS65.

 

jom

 

It is my understanding that when they sticker a FBL, they are endorsing the FBL.

 

I'm trying to get an answer on this at the moment....I'll let you know what I find. I've been curious about this for months....

 

jom

[jom]

JA called me a bit ago about my recent submission so I got a chance to talk to him directly about this. He said CAC DOES take the Strike Designation into account. So on the OP Franklin they felt the coin was FBL. He also mentioned that NGC is more strict than PCGS when it comes to FBLs but PCGS was tougher on the numerical grades (something I think most of know already).

 

So to Jason: if the coin did NOT meet your standards you DO have a reason to be disappointed with not only CAC but NGC as well...as they are usually tougher on that point.

 

jom