Mercury dime- already slabbed, GTG

[KeeNoooo]

Hey folks, I picked this up recently and finally got a chance to look it over good....

It is in an NGC, older holder, im not sure which gen. It is lined

First, What do you think it grades?

Second, FSB???

 

Thanks

Nick

[MarkFeld]

My guess is that it's graded 66FB.

[brg5658]

The images are a bit dark, so hard to tell. But I'll go with what Mark said. 66FB.

 

-Brandon

[yonico]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

[wdrob]

MS67FSB

[ldhair]

66 FB Nice coin.

[johnny9434]

ms 66 fb

[coinman_23885]

66FB with luster preventing a higher grade.

[KeeNoooo]

the obverse has much more luster in hand....i cannot take a decent picture to save my life!

 

the 3rd pic of the reverse is closer to in hand.

 

My question to you guys is, what are the qualities TPG's look for for a FB designation. I ask because i have seen Mercs that have the FB and Merc's that dont. Sometimes the ones that dont have a cleaner split in the middle bands then the ones that do.........I was under the impression they went by the Bands in the middle of the fascist.....?

 

 

 

BTW, NGC gave it an MS67, no FB

[MarkFeld]

the obverse has much more luster in hand....i cannot take a decent picture to save my life!

 

the 3rd pic of the reverse is closer to in hand.

 

My question to you guys is, what are the qualities TPG's look for for a FB designation. I ask because i have seen Mercs that have the FB and Merc's that dont. Sometimes the ones that dont have a cleaner split in the middle bands then the ones that do.........I was under the impression they went by the Bands in the middle of the fascist.....?

 

 

 

BTW, NGC gave it an MS67, no FB

 

Yes, it is the horizontal lines at the middle of the fasces that count for the FB designation.

 

Unfortunately, as is the case with numerical grading itself, the awarding of such designations is not perfectly accurate or consistent.

[KeeNoooo]

Thanks mark, thanks everyone

Nick

[Coindude]

66 middle bands iffy for FB.

[copper toning]

I would have guessed 66 FB given the pics. However I could see a 67 if the luster is there. Nice coin

[wdrob]

That coin is a FB all day long in my opinion when seeing some of the other FB Merc's that are not nearly as well defined as yours is. Like someone else pointed out (I think Mark) they are so inconsistent when handing out that FSB or FB depending on the TPG.

 

Nice Merc ..... I would resubmit for FB designation if you could make sure they did not drop a grade by identifying the lowest grade you will allow re-slabbing. I think you can do that.

 

I guess it all depends on how much $$$ there is to gain - or lose.

[$ilverHawk]

the obverse has much more luster in hand....i cannot take a decent picture to save my life!

 

the 3rd pic of the reverse is closer to in hand.

 

My question to you guys is, what are the qualities TPG's look for for a FB designation. I ask because i have seen Mercs that have the FB and Merc's that dont. Sometimes the ones that dont have a cleaner split in the middle bands then the ones that do.........I was under the impression they went by the Bands in the middle of the fascist.....?

 

 

 

BTW, NGC gave it an MS67, no FB

 

Yes, it is the horizontal lines at the middle of the fasces that count for the FB designation.

 

Unfortunately, as is the case with numerical grading itself, the awarding of such designations is not perfectly accurate or consistent.

 

I agree. The pics presented show separated middle bands. Not sure what problem NGC had with giving the FB designation.

 

Carl

[$ilverHawk]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

[yonico]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

[brg5658]

You may also want to look at this thread.

 

I got flamed by a couple members in that thread who said/thought they knew all there was to know about the FB designation, yet I have seen numerous examples like yours over the past couple years that I think would easily be in a FB holder at PCGS, but have not qualified at NGC.

 

 

[Coindude]

Exactly as stated above in the last two comments NGC has totally different and more stringent requirements for FB than PCGS. But I as well have to agree that they are inconsistent. I've seen some pretty flat bands in NGC holders as FB.

[KeeNoooo]

Some of this information was VERY useful to me!

Brandon, thanks for the link, that was very helpful as well.

Nick

[$ilverHawk]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Sorry, Carl, but I think you make it sound much easier, clearer and precise than it really is.

[yonico]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Carl, if you're talking about the pic I added as an example, this coin was graded 66+FB by pcgs.

. I added this pic to just show what might be designated FB by pcgs and not FB by NGC.

[$ilverHawk]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Sorry, Carl, but I think you make it sound much easier, clearer and precise than it really is.

 

I'm open to be educated. The link Brandon provided demonstrates that the NGC designation of FSB requires the central bands to be split and rounded.

Are you arguing about rounding of the bands or some different parameter?

 

My understanding from Brandons link is that if the central bands are fully split, PCGS attributes FS. That means fully split gets FS attribution and fully split and rounded gets FS attribution. NGC says if the bands are fully split and rounded FSB. NGC gives no attribution for fully split with lack of rounding. That is the OPs question.

 

So is the difference a judgement regarding the rounding of the central bands or something I'm missing?

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Sorry, Carl, but I think you make it sound much easier, clearer and precise than it really is.

 

I'm open to be educated. The link Brandon provided demonstrates that the NGC designation of FSB requires the central bands to be split and rounded.

Are you arguing about rounding of the bands or some different parameter?

 

My understanding from Brandons link is that if the central bands are fully split, PCGS attributes FS. That means fully split gets FS attribution and fully split and rounded gets FS attribution. NGC says if the bands are fully split and rounded FSB. NGC gives no attribution for fully split with lack of rounding. That is the OPs question.

 

So is the difference a judgement regarding the rounding of the central bands or something I'm missing?

 

Carl

 

Carl, my point is, regardless of whatever written standards you might see, designations are not necessarily applied extremely accurately and consistently in each case.

 

It's inevitable and understandable and not a knock on the grading companies. If you look at enough "FB" Mercury Dimes - even NGC ones - you will almost certainly see a good number of them which do not display fully split and/or rounded bands.

[brg5658]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Sorry, Carl, but I think you make it sound much easier, clearer and precise than it really is.

 

I'm open to be educated. The link Brandon provided demonstrates that the NGC designation of FSB requires the central bands to be split and rounded.

Are you arguing about rounding of the bands or some different parameter?

 

My understanding from Brandons link is that if the central bands are fully split, PCGS attributes FS. That means fully split gets FS attribution and fully split and rounded gets FS attribution. NGC says if the bands are fully split and rounded FSB. NGC gives no attribution for fully split with lack of rounding. That is the OPs question.

 

So is the difference a judgement regarding the rounding of the central bands or something I'm missing?

 

Carl

 

Carl, my point is, regardless of whatever written standards you might see, designations are not necessarily applied extremely accurately and consistently in each case.

 

It's inevitable and understandable and not a knock on the grading companies. If you look at enough "FB" Mercury Dimes - even NGC ones - you will almost certainly see a good number of them which do not display fully split and/or rounded bands.

 

I agree with Mark's assessment 100%. What's documented on their respective webpages doesn't mean that it's always consistently applied. And, for the record, the posted pictures of the PCGS 66+FB coin are mine, as is the coin.

[yonico]

I'd guess MS66, not FB.

Are the pics accurate for luster, or is it more lustrous in hand? Seems like not enough light

 

What do you see that makes this coin not FB? Just wondering, I see FB.

 

Carl

 

since the OP said that it was housed in an NGC holder i used their standards for FSB and the bands (while split and uninterrupted) seemed a bit flat and not well "rounded", or raised. will possibly pass as FB at PCGS, they have a different standard for the designation.

i also guessed MS66 (because of what i thought was lack of luster) but i did say that the pics were a bit dark, and asked if the coin had more luster in hand. assuming it does, i'm not surprised by the MS67 grade.

 

here's another example with a close-up photo of the bands (i'm suspect at least one member here recognizes this coin) that got a FB designation at PCGS but IMHO would probably fail to do so at NGC:

 

 

The example you show is not a coin with split bands. The OPs coin does have split bands. Thanks to Brandon for the link that clearly shows the difference between split bands and fully split bands. Yonico, I now understand that NGC requires rounding on the bands for the FSB designation.

 

Thanks to both of you for giving us a clear understanding of the difference between NGC and PCGS grading parameters.

 

You have added to my numismatic education, Thank you

 

Carl

 

Sorry, Carl, but I think you make it sound much easier, clearer and precise than it really is.

 

I'm open to be educated. The link Brandon provided demonstrates that the NGC designation of FSB requires the central bands to be split and rounded.

Are you arguing about rounding of the bands or some different parameter?

 

My understanding from Brandons link is that if the central bands are fully split, PCGS attributes FS. That means fully split gets FS attribution and fully split and rounded gets FS attribution. NGC says if the bands are fully split and rounded FSB. NGC gives no attribution for fully split with lack of rounding. That is the OPs question.

 

So is the difference a judgement regarding the rounding of the central bands or something I'm missing?

 

Carl

 

Carl, my point is, regardless of whatever written standards you might see, designations are not necessarily applied extremely accurately and consistently in each case.

 

It's inevitable and understandable and not a knock on the grading companies. If you look at enough "FB" Mercury Dimes - even NGC ones - you will almost certainly see a good number of them which do not display fully split and/or rounded bands.

 

I agree with Mark's assessment 100%. What's documented on their respective webpages doesn't mean that it's always consistently applied. And, for the record, the posted pictures of the PCGS 66+FB coin are mine, as is the coin.

 

I know; I did say I thought at least one member here would recognize the coin even though I posted just the close up pic

[wdrob]

I agree with Mark's assessment 100%. What's documented on their respective webpages doesn't mean that it's always consistently applied. And, for the record, the posted pictures of the PCGS 66+FB coin are mine, as is the coin.

 

 

I do too!

 

NGC does not require Fully Rounded Split Bands to receive FB designation. They are prone to be inconsistent too. I use to think it was only PCGS that was lax on judgement. The following are two dimes I had graded a while back.

 

 

 

 

 

1944 D AU58 FB

NGC Certification w/Pictures

 

 

 

 

1943 D MS 64 FB

NGC Certification w/Pictures

 

 

If this tells you anything it is that they don't use a microscope to determine FB, FSB, etc.....

 

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

Mark,

 

I'm clearly aware that the written standards of any TPG do not necessarily translate into the reality of the end product. Some times they miss. This is of course the fodder of many threads.

 

My thanks to yonico and Brandon was based upon bringing me a clearer understanding of the written standards of NGC and PCGS. Again, I'm aware that written standards do not accurately reflect attributions by any TPG.

 

I disagree with your statement "It's inevitable and understandable and not a knock on grading companies. If you look at enough "FB" Mercury Dimes-even NGC ones- you will see a good number of them which do not display fully split and/or rounded bands."

 

It is inexcusable that any market making entity not to adhere to clearly defined parameters that they themselves have published.

 

After all, if we look to the TPG s to define a specific attribute of a coin, and our money is connected to that attribution, the standard defined by the TPG should be consistent and reliable.

 

Don Quixote

[wdrob]

Mark,

 

After all, if we look to the TPG s to define a specific attribute of a coin, and our money is connected to that attribution, the standard defined by the TPG should be consistent and reliable.

 

Don Quixote

 

Where were you three months ago when I made that exact same point?

 

Oh yeah, that's right; Silent.