NGC Designates the Full Torch

[CameoCC]

Here is the text from NGC:

 

NGC Adds Important New Designations

 

[Florida] ¾ Numismatic Guaranty Corporation is now applying the designations PL for Prooflike and DPL for Deep Prooflike to all United States and world coins that merit them. This service goes into effect immediately. Soon to be adopted is the designation FT for Full Torch, which will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes. NGC will begin certifying FT dimes April 14, 2003.

 

NGC has been using the designations PL and DPL for some years with selected United States coin types, notably Morgan Dollars and many silver commemoratives, More recently, it has been applied to qualifying statehood quarters and Sacagawea Dollars. NGC’s customers have called attention to the fact that other coin types sometimes feature Prooflike or even Deep Prooflike fields, and these qualities will now be acknowledged for all USA and world coins.

 

These designations will be included when applicable during the normal course of grading, and no special fee or service is required when submitting uncertified coins to NGC. For those having coins already certified by NGC and that may qualify for the PL or DPL designations, these may be submitted for review of their status under NGC’s Designation Review service at a fee of $10. This includes the cost of reholdering the coin. Coins holdered by other companies may be submitted to NGC under its Crossover Service, and their PL or DPL status will be evaluated in the course of grading the coins.

 

WOW - that was quick.

 

Todd

 

[Hoot]

Must have been a long anticipated move.

 

Hoot

[EVillageProwler]

That I lost out on a '76 TD double-sided PL now looms large with me.

 

It was a gorgeous coin, graded MS64 by a prominent 4-letter service, and hammered at $4250. I was the underbidder, and strongly considered bidding even higher.

 

I am remorseful that I didn't get the coin. I blame beboplawyer. He was telling me not to bid anymore...

 

EVP

 

[Hoot]

Rightly so, beboplawyer should remunerate you for the true value of the coin (what it would have taken to win), psychological damages, and a subsequent supression of physical reactions.

 

Hoot

[GP_]

why!! FT not only sounds stupid, but as a collector of roosevelts it doesnt seem to be something I want to worry about. Well maybe I will get lucky and all those crappy non FT rooseys will go down in price

[keithdagen]

Interesting -- will NGC publish a FT standard before PCGS does and beat them to the gun?

[jom]

I'll ask the same question I asked over at PCGS which I didn't get an answer too (typical): Instead of these dumb designations why not designate FULL STRIKE instead. Isn't that more comprehensive and more meaningfull to the collector? After all, if you are going to pay some crazy premium for this designation why not have a full strike instead of just a Full Torch or whatever?

 

jom

[Bob Flaminio]

Yeah, what jom said. Drop all these silly acronyms and just use FS -- Full Strike -- for all series.

[paigow_johnny]

[coinman1794]

A coin doesn't have to be fully struck all over to receive these designations; only the area in question needs to be complete. We are not measuring the overall strike, just the strike in a certain area. Therefore, putting "full strike" on the holder would be missleading.

 

Not to mention that coins are almost never fully struck (with the exception of most modern issues).

[Drizzt]

A coin doesn't have to be fully struck all over to receive these designations; only the area in question needs to be complete. We are not measuring the overall strike, just the strike in a certain area. Therefore, putting "full strike" on the holder would be missleading.

 

Not to mention that coins are almost never fully struck (with the exception of most modern issues).

 

Well,there ya go. So wouldn't a full strike designation be a good thing?

[nwcs]

No!!!!! We were just making fun of that designation in the grading class today. The two instructors didn't even realize PCGS had announced it. Guess I'll really surprise them tomorrow morning about a new designation they have to handle. They really liked the idea of a single designation of well struck.

[coinman1794]

"Well,there ya go. So wouldn't a full strike designation be a good thing?"

 

What I was trying to articulate is that there is virtually no such thing as a full strike, and such a designation would be missleading. There is almost always some part of a coin that is not fully struck, so the term just doesn't make sense. Also, a designation such as well struck seems a bit too ambiguous.

 

It seems to me that everything is fine with our specific designations that describe exactly what we are looking for. Take Franklin halves, for instance. We are looking specifically at the bell lines, so, why try to describe the whole coin? That is, I think it would be better to say FBL rather than "full strike" or "well struck" because a coin can have less than a "full strike" and still receive an FBL, and a coin can be "well struck" without receiving an FBL. FBL tells us exactly what we want to know, and the other terms do not. So, why mess with something that works?

 

Also, when I mentioned modern issues, I was refering to things like state quarters and other modern (late 1990's-2000's) issues that are usually very sharp, and which don't carry any striking designations anyway. So, these don't even come into play (with the exception of Roosevelts, now).

[Drizzt]

Yes-After thinking about it, I suppose full struck would be 68-69 anyway.(presumably)

[nwcs]

What was interesting was discussing the full torch designation yesterday with the graders and then today after the announcement. I shouldn't say more than that, though. But I do dislike the registry driving designations. Which is what this really is for to both PCGS and NGC.