Bell lines 0

[Jon Picton]

1. Is this a candidate for a fbl type? I dont know if its wishful thinking or really lined up nice.

[Mr.Bill347]

That’s us an excellent specimen! If that doesn’t qualify for strong strike full bell lines, I’m not what would. According articles I have read, the S mint was know for soft strikes. It would be nice to see both sides of the coin.

Good picture too!

[Jon Picton]

3 hours ago, Mr.Bill347 said:

That’s us an excellent specimen! If that doesn’t qualify for strong strike full bell lines, I’m not what would. According articles I have read, the S mint was know for soft strikes. It would be nice to see both sides of the coin.

Good picture too!

Thank you for the 👍vote. Its challenging to get a realistic image of a shiny object to say the least. It's a 1963 P in a mint state pack. I found it at the pawn shop up the street. I pd $17 for the set. 

[Woods020]

Franklins are heart breakers in my experience. I’ve sent a couple I swore were FBL and they didn’t make it. They are very strict on them and I have seen others say the same. There are two areas that would worry me. The immediate left of the crack is allowable to be slightly weak. But the two areas I put arrows to would be questionable. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

This area looks mushy and pushed upward plus the other areas Woods020 pointed out. I'm a no on the FBL.

[J P M]

It is still a great looking Ben and you only paid 1/2 of what it is worth on the market ,So I would say you are still a .

[Just Bob]

Is that a proof?

[Coinbuf]

25 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Is that a proof?

I was wondering the same thing.

[J P M]

7 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

I was wondering the same thing.

It looks like it is in a flat pack that is why I said market price. 1963 proof set is$36

[Coinbuf]

12 minutes ago, J P Mashoke said:

It looks like it is in a flat pack that is why I said market price. 1963 proof set is$36

Yes but if it is a proof then the bell lines are moot as FBL designation is not something that the TPG's put on the label for proofs.

[J P M]

Just now, Coinbuf said:

Yes but if it is a proof then the bell lines are moot as FBL designation is not something that the TPG's put on the label for proofs.

Ya I know, it is one of those things.

[Woods020]

Now that others have said it, I’m curious. The reverse does look like it could be a proof. The obverse I don’t know. May be the picture. But obviously agree if it’s a proof this is a moot post. 
 

I would also like to see a picture of the full reverse. I want to see if that’s a die crack or damage through the F in half Dollar. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

Sure looks like a PF judging by the eagles feathers. Were there any T2s on the BU coins in this year?

[Jon Picton]

On 5/29/2021 at 9:48 AM, Just Bob said:

Is that a proof?

On 5/28/2021 at 10:04 PM, Woods020 said:

Franklins are heart breakers in my experience. I’ve sent a couple I swore were FBL and they didn’t make it. They are very strict on them and I have seen others say the same. There are two areas that would worry me. The immediate left of the crack is allowable to be slightly weak. But the two areas I put arrows to would be questionable. 

Thanks for the input. I send my coins to NGC so I'm used to heartbreak. Lol. Jk. NGC is fair and great to be a part of. I'm still a rookie!

[Jon Picton]

It's not a proof. It's in a celophane mint state set. 

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, Jon Picton said:

It's not a proof. It's in a celophane mint state set. 

I could not see the blue border on the cellophane, so I thought it might be the clear cellophane of a proof set. The coin sure looks like a proof from the pictures.

[Jon Picton]

On 5/29/2021 at 11:25 AM, Woods020 said:

Now that others have said it, I’m curious. The reverse does look like it could be a proof. The obverse I don’t know. May be the picture. But obviously agree if it’s a proof this is a moot post. 
 

I would also like to see a picture of the full reverse. I want to see if that’s a die crack or damage through the F in half Dollar. 

Oh. And that line in the "f" in half dollar is only on the clear celophane. Thank goodness! 

[J P M]

Did It come in a envelope with writing like this. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

It still looks like a PF to me. I'm not a Franklin collector but the eagle is supposed to be the major tell between PF and BU. Maybe there was a packaging mix up or the T2 rev proof die was used but I don't think that is known for this date.

BU

PF

[Jon Picton]

Thx for the clarification. I'm not sure yet how to tell the difference between proof sets and the others that come in the celophane pks. This one with the half dollar in my post came from a pawn shop. There was no letter stating it is a proof set. So I thought it was an uncirculated(?) mint set. I have a 1968 dime with no mint mark in similar pkg but found out it wasnt the valuable one because these pks are not proof sets but mint sets. How can one know the difference? Thx for any pointers!- jon

[Just Bob]

In 1963, both Mint set and proof sets came in the flat pack, but, the Mint set had a colored border on two sides- blue for Philadelphia, and red for Denver. The proof set had no colored border. That is one way to tell, but, you obviously have to have the original packaging. Another way is to look at the Eagle on the Franklin half. As Mike pointed out, there are different styles, and you can check those out with online pictures. Look at close-ups of type one and type two Franklins, and, you will notice a difference in the tail feathers.

Proof coins also look different from business strike coins. The surfaces are smoother and more polished looking, the strike is stronger, and the rims are usually more defined. In addition, proof coins will be mostly mark free. They were made for collectors, so were handled differently than regular coins. In 1963, Mint set coins, on the other hand, were given no special treatment. They will usually have at least a few hits from being struck by other coins, during the coining process. I have mint sets with coins in them that are so dinged up, they look like they were pulled from pocket change.

[J P M]

I could be wrong but 1963 the mint made proof sets with no stripe, mint sets were blue and red stripes 

[Jon Picton]

55 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

In 1963, both Mint set and proof sets came in the flat pack, but, the Mint set had a colored border on two sides- blue for Philadelphia, and red for Denver. The proof set had no colored border. That is one way to tell, but, you obviously have to have the original packaging. Another way is to look at the Eagle on the Franklin half. As Mike pointed out, there are different styles, and you can check those out with online pictures. Look at close-ups of type one and type two Franklins, and, you will notice a difference in the tail feathers.

Proof coins also look different from business strike coins. The surfaces are smoother and more polished looking, the strike is stronger, and the rims are usually more defined. In addition, proof coins will be mostly mark free. They were made for collectors, so were handled differently than regular coins. In 1963, Mint set coins, on the other hand, were given no special treatment. They will usually have at least a few hits from being struck by other coins, during the coining process. I have mint sets with coins in them that are so dinged up, they look like they were pulled from pocket change.

That's the answer right there. The red white and clear! Thanks so much for the rule of thumb I couldnt find anywhere online or on YouTube. All the responses on this forum are helpful. I'm learning!

[VKurtB]

19 hours ago, Jon Picton said:

It's not a proof. It's in a celophane mint state set. 

You know ALL 1963 proof sets were issued in cellophane packs, right?

[VKurtB]

7 hours ago, J P Mashoke said:

I could be wrong but 1963 the mint made proof sets with no stripe, mint sets were blue and red stripes 

BINGO!

[VKurtB]

7 hours ago, Jon Picton said:

That's the answer right there. The red white and clear! Thanks so much for the rule of thumb I couldnt find anywhere online or on YouTube. All the responses on this forum are helpful. I'm learning!

Seriously, do NOT use YouTube as a source for anything about coins.

[VKurtB]

9 hours ago, Jon Picton said:

Thx for the clarification. I'm not sure yet how to tell the difference between proof sets and the others that come in the celophane pks. This one with the half dollar in my post came from a pawn shop. There was no letter stating it is a proof set. So I thought it was an uncirculated(?) mint set. I have a 1968 dime with no mint mark in similar pkg but found out it wasnt the valuable one because these pks are not proof sets but mint sets. How can one know the difference? Thx for any pointers!- jon

It helps to have been alive and collecting when these events happened. 

[RWB]

Proof coins will have mirror-like fields - you can easily see a reflection.

Uncirculated coins will have frosty-looking fields - you can barely detect a reflection.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Proof coins will have mirror-like fields - you can easily see a reflection.

Uncirculated coins will have frosty-looking fields - you can barely detect a reflection.

Unless the proof coin is still in the pliofilm original package, ESPECIALLY the ones used in 1963-64. They are unusually adept at hiding the mirror fields.

[J P M]

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Unless the proof coin is still in the pliofilm original package, ESPECIALLY the ones used in 1963-64. They are unusually adept at hiding the mirror fields.

I have a 63 and a 57 in the packs and they are very nice but not mirrored fields