Is this Franklin FBL?

[wdrob]

Well, just as asked. It is inside a Whitman Mint Set holder.

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

[bsshog40]

I don't know much about FBL's but from what I have seen here in the past, they have been pretty visible all the way across. It looks as though some of the lines seem to fade out in spots.

[wdrob]

I am the same on Franklins Bobby. Don't know much about them. I think they have sometimes made comments such as over here at NGC no but ATS yes. But maybe that was Merc Dimes they were talking about.

 

But I guess both sets of horizontal lines needs to be complete?

 

What about the vertical bell crack. Does that play a role in FBL?

 

Just questions I figured could be answered very quickly by Jason or Mark.

 

 

[bsshog40]

Yea I'd like to see some more info myself Bill.

[mikew148]

I'd say yes for PCGS and CAC as they only require lower set of lines to be full.

 

NGC requires both upper and lower sets of lines to be full so I'd say no for NGC.

[physics-fan3.14]

Two reasons that coin is not FBL.

 

1. The bell lines are not full. Both sets of lines need to be full for a coin to be FBL. This coin isn't FBL even by PCGS inferior standards - look at the far right set of the bottom lines, there is incompleteness. I don't consider PCGS FBL to actually mean anything - only NGC. NGC requires both sets of lines to be full, and these are clearly not.

 

2. The coin appears to be a proof, and proofs are not given FBL designation. Its a low quality proof, but it appears to be a proof.

 

The vertical crack doesn't play into the designation. Lines must be complete up to within a very tiny distance from the crack.

[Coindude]

2. The coin appears to be a proof, and proofs are not given FBL designation. Its a low quality proof, but it appears to be a proof.

This was my first thought. Also I was glad to see Jason jump in on this. If I were going to ask someone on this board information about this series, it would be Jason.

[jpcienkus]

2. The coin appears to be a proof, and proofs are not given FBL designation. Its a low quality proof, but it appears to be a proof.

This was my first thought. Also I was glad to see Jason jump in on this. If I were going to ask someone on this board information about this series, it would be Jason.

 

Agreed. As Jason just sold many from his collection, I would think his opinion on this is right on.

 

Edited to add: Looks like a Type II

[Danye West]

I don't think so, the upper set is too weak especially near the bell

[mikew148]

2. The coin appears to be a proof, and proofs are not given FBL designation. Its a low quality proof, but it appears to be a proof.

This was my first thought. Also I was glad to see Jason jump in on this. If I were going to ask someone on this board information about this series, it would be Jason.

 

I'll defer to Jason's expertise as well.

 

I was going to ask, in my initial response, if it's a proof or MS PL. As previously stated, if it's a proof then there is no discussion on FBL.

 

I have a couple of Franklins with close to the same degree of incompleteness at the very ends of the lines that PCGS gave their blessing to. They're the reason I said yes by PCGS standards.

 

I prefer NGC's requirement of both sets needing to be full for the designation.

[wdrob]

Two reasons that coin is not FBL.

 

1. The bell lines are not full. Both sets of lines need to be full for a coin to be FBL. This coin isn't FBL even by PCGS inferior standards - look at the far right set of the bottom lines, there is incompleteness. I don't consider PCGS FBL to actually mean anything - only NGC. NGC requires both sets of lines to be full, and these are clearly not.

 

2. The coin appears to be a proof, and proofs are not given FBL designation. Its a low quality proof, but it appears to be a proof.

 

The vertical crack doesn't play into the designation. Lines must be complete up to within a very tiny distance from the crack.

 

 

Hahaha!

 

I thought those other coins looked pretty good for them to be part of a mint set as I was under the impression.

 

I appreciate the explanation of FBL's for future reference since the coin explorer tends to be a bit unclear to me.

 

"especially with fully defined “bell lines” near the Liberty Bell’s bottom. "

 

That made me think that they possibly only take into account the bottom set of lines. But now I know.

 

As far as being a proof, I was aware that designations such as FB, FS, or FBL do not apply to proofs, and justly so. You're right in that it is a poor quality proof if I could think it was possibly a business strike.

 

Thanks to all that chimed in.