1958 D Franklin Toning

[Davids5104]

Am I mistaken or does there seem to be a disproportionately large availability of 1958D Franklins with great toning? were they sealed in a certain way different from their counterparts? I have 3 that are great and I think so many more exist

[physics-fan3.14]

Yes.

 

The majority of the nicely toned 58D Franklins you see came from mint sets. The mint sets of 1957 and 1958 produced some of the most attractive Franklins you'll find. Nobody is entirely sure what was different about those mint sets, but it is well known. They were made of cardboard, and the sulfur in the paper accelerated toning.

 

In 1959, the mint switched over to plastic packaging, and so attractively toned Franklins after that are much scarcer.

 

Here are old pictures of some 1958D Franklins I have owned:

 

 

 

[SkyMan]

David, that is one of those "mysteries" that is out there. Paper/cardboard Mint Sets started in 1947 and continued through to 1958 (with no mint sets made in 1950). Many of the coins that were in the earlier Mint Sets did not tone up nearly as well as the later Mint Sets (and in ALL years the GENERAL toning on Mint Set coins tends to be in the blah to ugly range).

 

The years 1956 - 1958 are known to have produced a disproportionate amount of nice toners, with the 1958-D Mint Set card producing BY FAR the greatest amount. Last I checked, several years ago, the 1958-D Franklin was roughly 40% of the * (star) population of ALL Franklins. In other words, the OTHER THIRTY FOUR date/mm's of the Franklins ONLY produced 60% of all the * Franklins.

 

Another interesting aspect of toning and Franklins that is PARTICULARLY noticeable in the 1956 - 1958 Franklins, but is certainly noticeable in earlier Mint Sets, is that the P mint silver coins, if they toned nicely, tended to have blue toning, while D mint silver coins, if they toned nicely, tended to have red or green toning.

 

Mint packaging techniques would have been the same at the assorted Mints, so the paper and cardboard would have been standardized. MAYBE the water wash of the planchets before stamping etc. would have contributed to the different colors between the Mints, but no one is really sure why 1958-D Franklins turned out the way they did.

 

Here's an example of P mint versus D mint toning...

 

 

[brg5658]

Here's my 58-D. I "sold" it on eBay about 3-4 months ago, but the buyer never paid (go figure). So, I took that as an omen that maybe I should keep it for a bit longer.

 

[orifdoc]

A 1958-D that I sold a while back:

 

 

And for comparison, a 1957:

 

[coinman_23885]

PCGS MS66 FBL CAC

 

[david3142]

I like the direction this thread turned.

 

 

[erwindoc]

Some beautiful coins guys! Perhaps another certified series Ill tackle in the future, but for now my album collection will have to do.

[physics-fan3.14]

Some beautiful coins guys! Perhaps another certified series Ill tackle in the future, but for now my album collection will have to do.

 

I have seen some extremely attractive albums of Franklin halves.

 

Coins don't have to be certified to be attractive. We welcome all coins here, regardless of what clothing they wear.

[RWB]

There are too many variables to ascribe "attractive toning" to one mint or another. Paperboard coin holders were probably purchased from a local contractor near Philadelphia; but it's doubtful anyone cared with the sulfur or other elemental composition was. (Assuming assembly was done at the Philadelphia Mint.)

[SkyMan]

Some beautiful coins guys! Perhaps another certified series Ill tackle in the future, but for now my album collection will have to do.

 

I have seen some extremely attractive albums of Franklin halves.

 

Coins don't have to be certified to be attractive. We welcome all coins here, regardless of what clothing they wear.

 

 

 

As an example, here are the 1958 P & D Franklins from my A Dansco album...

 

 

[bstrauss3]

Given it's common to those two years, you can pretty well exclude storage environmental issues.

 

Packaging and mint processes (a planchet rinse or different lubricant) are most likely. Different vendor for the cardboard, different printer (ink), etc. There probably are clues in the old mint records (contracts) should they still exist and somebody look.

 

I'd bet slight sulfur content in the cardboard or ink since it seems to go only so far - whatever the contaminant is, it gets used up / neutralized before the coins get to black.

 

Regardless, they make for some pretty coins!

[Davids5104]

So i have 2 of the prettiest 1958D franklins I have seen. Along with these other great examples why have i never seen star attributes to the MS varieties of these coins?

[physics-fan3.14]

So i have 2 of the prettiest 1958D franklins I have seen. Along with these other great examples why have i never seen star attributes to the MS varieties of these coins?

 

Show us yours!

 

Many of them have stars. Skyman has done an analysis about the percentage of them with stars, and the numbers are extremely high, comparatively.

 

For example, 2 of the coins that I posted above have stars.

[Davids5104]

Here are the obverses. the reverses are not quite as nice

 

 

 

 

[robec1347]

Here are the obverses. the reverses are not quite as nice

 

 

 

 

Well I see one major reason you didn't get a star on either of these.

 

PCGS doesn't give stars, only NGC does.

[Davids5104]

shows how naive I am. I did not even think about that.

[coinman1794]

The star designation is very hard to get on Franklin halves (even NGC graded ones ).

[physics-fan3.14]

That second one is very nice! If the reverse is also attractive (even if not quite as colorful), that one would get a star at NGC, I think.

 

But yeah, PCGS doesn't do Stars.

[saen78]

Great looking Franklins in this thread! Here is my 58 P&D

[ATF_COINS]