Designations

[RMontgomery]

Hello everyone,

 

As we've come upon the most recent designations of FT for Roosevelt dimes and PL and DPL for all US coins, I wanted to invite your thoughts on this subject of designations and what all of you think about the future of designations. As I'm sure you've read, the term Full Strike has been suggested and booted about and has been offered as the catch all term for any series not already designated.

 

There are also those series of coins that are beginning to evolve with designations such as Full Hand Walking Liberty halves, Full Horn Buffalo nickels, etc.

 

So the question begs, are there designations that are going to come down the pike that marketplace wants recognized? Probably so over time, but we want to be careful in making sure that any new designation is so desired by the marketplace at large.

 

And so with that, your thoughts please. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

 

Rick

[jtryka]

There will probably be a lot more coming, though I must admit I am not excited about it. I am one of those old-fashioned collectors that think most designations are merely designed to enhance submissions and drive up prices of a very thin segment of a particular series. So there is good and bad with that. The bad thing is that a lot of coins will eventually become unaffordable to the average collector, but the flip side is there will be a whole lot of nice coins that miss the deisgnation, that will be dirt cheap in my opinion. Here are two examples: I own a 1938 Merc. in MS-67 that cost me about the same amount as one in MS-65 with the FB designation, but you know what, the 67 looks awesome! I also own a 1953-S Franklin in MS-65, which I think is a great coin, but it costs less than any FBL designated coin for that date. In fact you could get a non-FBL in MS-66 for the price of an FBL MS-62.

 

So I guess what I am saying is that pursuing such designations serves to split the collecting community between those who care and are willing to pay, and those who don't care or are unwilling to pay. I still have my BU set of Roosies in my Dansco album, and I bet quite a few might have the FT designation, but it still won't prompt me to send them in. Maybe some day, but even then I'd just sell them, find nice non-FTs to fill the holes and use the leftover money to buy Saints. By the way, if you are thinking of screwing around with Saints, please don't. But if you must, use something like Full Torch, or Full Head (probably more important), then leave all those nice bargain-priced MS-65s to collectors like me (I will offer 10% over melt for all the non FT/FH Saints!).

 

Finally, I would urge you to consider how this all looks to collectors. Does is look like you are serving them, or serving yourselves with higher submissions? Personally, I am not a Roosevelt specialist by any stretch, but for all the coin shows I've attended, and all the collectors I know, the first I heard about the FT (or need for it) was when you decided to add the designation. So I guess the question is, which collectors were you responding to when adding this "service?"

[BankNote1]

I have to agree with JT! I have never heard a collector mention "full Torch" on Rosy Dimes. I am wondering if this is something the collectors or something just to up submissions?

I hope no more designations will be added in any other series!

[gmarguli]

Supposedly there was a "Full Torch" or "Full Split Band" Roosevelt society many years back. They broke up due to lack of interest.

 

Personally, there are very few designations that mean anything to me. I like the CAM/UCAM, but the FT, FB, FBL (awful designation), FH, etc don't impress me.

[coinman1794]

I have heard many people talking about a full torch designation. It is really nothing new.

 

While adding new designations will boost submissions, doing so is also further appealing to the numismatics community. NGC grades and designates, and they are simply continuing that service. That is what they do, and that is what many people want them to do.

 

While I like the purpose of designations (which is pointing out nicely struck coins), I don't like the inflation in price that results from designations. It really is buying the holder in a sense, because the big premiums did not exists until the holder said FB, FBL etc. That's not to say that a well struck coin wasn't previously desirable through. So, in other words, I am saying a modest premium is acceptable, but huge premiums are just absurd.

 

It is also sad that great coins that don't get the designation will actually decrease in value becuase everyone wants the designated coins and could care less about the non-designatated coins. I am, however, one who likes to take advantage of this decrease, becuase I know these are nice coins, even if virtually no one else does. And so, I am happy to buy them! But - what about the people who buy the coins before the designations come out, and their coins go down in value because they don't make the new designation?

 

[Peace_Fan]

As far as designations regarding strike go, I would like to see simply a "FS" for full strike designation that could be applied to any coin. However, IMO, the strike should be a determining factor in the grade of the coin, and in ANA guidelines it is. Any coin that grades MS66 or higher better have a full strike already, so any "FBL" or "FT" or "FS" should be redundant at the higher grade levels and therefore unnecessary. For lower grade coins I can see a case made where the number of marks are excessive, and then the strike can be a differentiator. My $.02....

[braddick]

I agree. Greg's right. Too many designations and Barry is correct that a "FS" (Full Strike") should cover it all if you desire to take it a step past the grading scale.

 

Simplifiying is best, IMHO. Luster; marks; strike all are part of the grade.

Why separate one feature over the others?

 

CAM and DCAM are separate from the grade and worthy of a designation. So is RED; RB, and BR. Copper can be of high grade and receive any of the color designation, but I would think FH or FT or FS (full steps) should be a part of the GEM grade.

[keithdagen]

I for one am not a fan of these extra designators, because they don't always tell the full story. Easiest example is the Standing Liberty Quarter, where a MS-65FH quarter may or may not have all the shield rivets defined, usually softest at the sash.

[coinman1794]

We have to remember just how slight some of these fine details of the design are. They are very very minor. Whether or not a Jefferson nickel is FS or not will have no baring on the grade, becuase the steps are so tiny, and make up such a tiny part of the coin. On the other hand, if there are large weak areas or something (if there is obvious strikeing deficiency), then the strike will effect the grade of the coin. Whether or not the bands are fully split or the steps are all there is to minor to effect the grade. That is why coins without these features make the high grades.

[EVillageProwler]

I am strongly opposed to strike-based grade designations because I feel that it forces the wrong kind of focus on a coin and doesn't really mean that a coin is fully struck in all ways. Moreover, I find the realistic, founded fear of devaluation of near-misses to be compelling.

 

If the hobby as a whole really wants a strike-based designation, then I will grudgingly accept a single FULL Strike designation to encompass all U.S. circulation-strike series. This has to represent FULL, which is better than WELL, strike specimens.

 

For GEM specimens, I believe a coin only needs to be WELL struck.

 

EVP

 

[cladking]

Collectors have become more quality concious in the last few decades. They are also becoming far more concerned about the quality of strike and it is this which is driving the adaptation of the grading system to include strike designations. It's certainly logical that good strikes should be more highly valued than poor strikes. What does it really matter if an important design feature is worn off or was never on the coin to start with. Personnally I prefer the coin with good honest wear to the one stuck by worn, misaligned, or poorly hubbed dies. It is true that the feature chosen for the designation is not always an important feature, but if it is one which is among the last to strike up then the coin will probably exhibit the more important features also. These designations are good for collectors if they can remember to keep them in context. It rewards those who have paid attention to quality. It allows some coins which might otherwise have little to distinguish themselves from others to stand out. It makes some sets more challenging while making the just missed coins more readily available. In the case of the Roosys, it will spur demand. This has long been the major problem with them as a collectable; few collected them because they were cheap and they were cheap because few collected them. Now many are likely to discover the charms of this small, long overlooked coin.

 

Ideally, it would be nice to see coins graded on each of the criteria. The market obviously is not ready for this, so the more designations the better. Bring 'em on. How about full talons for Washingtons.

[EVillageProwler]

CladKing,

 

It should not be the job of the services to spur interest in Roosies, or any other series. If it does come to that, however, I'd rather that they spur interest in Seated material! I think they've languished long enough...

 

EVP

 

[keithdagen]

however, I'd rather that they spur interest in Seated material! I think they've languished long enough...

 

Shh....

 

At least let me finish picking up my Type set pieces before you start spurring interest in Seated material.

[RotatedRainbows]

My biggest problem with all the designations is it almost encourages people not to learn about the series they are collecting because they think everything they need to know will be printed on the slab label. There has already been a shift in that direction over the last 10 years and I think adding more designations will just make the problem worse.

[cladking]

EVP: Obviously you're right that it's not the job of the services to spur demand in anything, and seated material has been overlooked as long as the Roosys. Even if developement of these modern markets could be shown to be critical to the future of the hobby, this also would not constitute sufficient reason to spur demand in them. But there is some demand for these coins and a desire among those who collect them to further separate the rare from the more common. The strike designation, in all probability, is largely an outgrowth of this demand.

 

So long as collectors keep their perspective when acquiring FT or NFT pieces then surely there can be little harm. Yes, some people will feel encouraged to overpay just because a coin is rare in FT, or worse, is only rare at the current time. Some will pay huge premiums for coins in FT that are otherwise less than desirable and some may feel they are being squeezed out of the market by "greater fools". There may be some who feel slighted because their coins will not bring the designations or whose gems suddenly bring less because the strikes tend to be inferior. But, overall this should be a very positive development for collectors and for the market. In all probability this will not result in money coming out of similar coins like mercuries or Washingtons but an increase in the amount of money and number of collectors coming into the market. Newbies have been expanding into these "older" coins and are beginning to feel more confident spending money on coins. Increased demand is likely to result in profits for these collectors and there is nothing like a profit to make one more confident in his purchases.

 

 

[gmarguli]

I'd rather that they spur interest in Seated material! I think they've languished long enough...

 

Yes, the Seated coins. The classic collectors version of the SBA.

 

They've languished because they are ugly. No designation will change that.

[Oldtrader3]

I take particular umbrage with the FB designation on Franklin Half Dollars. I have a complete set (plus) of Franklins and am frankly amazed at some of the trash that makes the FB designation on poorly struck "D" and "S" mint coins, while other coins of the same mint mark with better line definition don't make the grade. I have several no-full-band Franklins that are FB and a couple that are marked FB that really aren't. I think that the "full strike" designation is much more important than all these other attributes.

 

I have always felt that a lot of this is an artiface to give dealers leverage to sell their coins for more by creating a need for some detail that may or may not indicate a full strike coin. I know that I am probably in the minority in this opinion. But, charging more for a 3/4 head Standing Lib. Quarter is in my opinion artiface at it's highest level. Additionally, how many ads state "almost full bands" as if that means something other than trying to charge a higher price. It is kind of like "almost pregnant".

[Peace_Fan]

BTW,

 

Rick, thanks for asking! This is more evidence of NGC's commitment to satisfying customers.

[TomB]

My reply is going to read quite consistent with the majority you have already received but I can honestly tell you that it is not part of a heard mentality. These thoughts are strongly and independently felt by many of us.

 

I dislike very much the new designation for Roosevelt dimes as I believe it is consistent with the poorly thought out designaitons used in other series where approximately 3% of one side of a coin's surface is used as the standard for strike designation even if it is just in an obtuse manner. This is particularly the case with Roosevelt dimes as I have been buying and selling these coins in high grade for a number of years and, while a certain percentage of these pieces would qualify for the FT designation, there have been many FT candidates that have had extremely poor peripheral lettering. In my mind soft peripheral lettering is a greater sin than strong torch lines are a bonus. However, with the present monster system that we have a runaway designations, the FT coin will garner the attention or bid dollars because of an, in this case, unimportant design element.

 

If there is a great cry for designations then I would suggest something along the lines of a full strike designation where the coin would have to meet certain minimal criteria throughout both the entirety of the obverse and reverse elements in order to obtain the designation. That will most assuredly never happen as there are precious few truly fully struck coins and this will keep their market acceptance down and also keep down submissions to third party certification services.

 

I have written in the past about the Full Band Roosevelt Society that fell apart in the mid-seventies because of apathy and am familiar with the coins that are difficult to obtain in the series. In my opinion this designation should have taken its cue from the society and not have shown its ugly head. Lastly, I agree with those who have written that they know of essentially no one who was clamoring for this FT designation. Who are these people who are demanding this service? I cannot imagine that they are the average collector, for the most part, as these people do not want to resubmit coins for the designation and do not want to pay more for a subset of this population of coins.

 

In short, please do not add more designations.

[gmarguli]

Lastly, I agree with those who have written that they know of essentially no one who was clamoring for this FT designation. Who are these people who are demanding this service?

 

When I asked about this designation in the past, I was told it wasn't wanted by the community. Then a few months later it is going to be used because of the great demand according to D*vid H*ll. Either the demand appeared rather quickly or DH lied (yet again).

 

My guess is that either submissions for Roosevelts dropped at PCG$, or that some dealer who has a bunch of FT Roosevelts "requested" this service, or worst of all, DHRC has a bunch of these or a pending deal to buy them.

[coinman1794]

Oldtrader3,

 

Are the marginal FBL Franklins you speak of in PCGS slabs? PCGS has proven very inconsistent with the FBL designation, and they do not require a coin to have full bell lines to begin with, as NGC does. Rather, they only require the bottom rows to be complete. And, they will accept large, ugle bagmarks that clearly break the lines. Also, I have seen some recently that arent even close - totally flat to be exact (check out my DMRareCoins registry set "The Less than FBL Franklin Collection," under 1958-D PCGS MS66FBL. Incidently, this coin was graded 2 weeks before Rick left PCGS. Maybe they were trying to keep my business by sweetening the deal when faced with loosing their #1 man!)!

 

NGC, on the other hand, is very very tough (sometimes too tough) on bell lines. All 7 lines must be absolutely full up to the crack, with no major interuptions. I haven't seen an NGC FBL that wasn't absolutely solid (but I'm sure there are at least some out there).

 

Anyway, if the coins you speak of are PCGS coins, please don't let their misgivings and inconsistencies ruin your like for FBL Franklins! The FBL designation is a valuable tool when the standards are adhered too.

[cointagious]

Rick,

Read the TomB post twice. Even if designations are expanded, and because of the money involved i'm sure they will be, perhaps a FS (full strike) designation for all series is in order for that extra special coin.

[ms66quarters]

I'm not a Roosie. collector, but lately I have been to the local show's and dealer's looking for FT Roosie's.

 

My question is...is this Registry set influenced!!!

If it is, then I feel there should be 2,sets of equal importance, in the registry.

I have mixed emotion's on this topic,obviously it will ignite the series....just like the statehood quarter's did for the silver and clad washington's.

But the "High Grade" coins now in registry set's will be "devalued" probably...I feel that is unfair.

That is why there should be 2 seperate set's in the registry...of equal importance.

 

Just an example...an MS-68 be the same as a MS67FT.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Rob

[gmarguli]

If it is, then I feel there should be 2,sets of equal importance, in the registry.

 

You can't really do this. Everyone would look at the set with the designation and know it is the "better" set. Would you ever put a set of let say proof Franklins at the same level of importance of a set of UCAM proof Franklins?

 

 

But the "High Grade" coins now in registry set's will be "devalued" probably...I feel that is unfair.

 

Why? Will you cry for someone who bought Apple stock because Microsoft came along?

 

Collect what you like because you like it. If you buy for investment, then too bad when it goes down. Not trying to be mean, but that is just the way the investing world works. Yes, many people will see the value of their coins go down. If they like their coins less for this, then they weren't a collector to begin with.

 

[Hoot]

I have waffled back and forth on this subject and I still find myself a bit ambivalent. I agree with cladking on one hand and EVP on another, so how's that for confusion?

 

I think that any of the strike designations impart important information. They tell of a design feature that is something akin to the NGC * designation, but not as abstracted. Instead, the strike designation tells the tale that a coin has an important design element in more than average (far more, really) relief. This can be useful information to the collector, even though it does not tell the whole story. The disinformation is that this feature is more important than others when it comes to the appeal of the coin, thus a major difference from the NGC * designation. All things equal, it is still up to the collector to seek out a coin that has the strike designation, other features well struck or struck to his/her satisfaction, and jouncing with eye appeal. This is the challenge to every serious collector, whether strike designations are made or not. So, why not have them?

 

If the market is wild for a particular series with a strike designation, then in many ways it makes the rest of the coins in the series, including all the near misses, more affordable (as others have said). I see no harm in this. Afterall, a fool and his money are soon parted, and we can each spend our dollars as foolishly as we wish in these regards - I know I do. As for what this means in terms of constructing "the finest collection," well I think that any serious and informed collector knows that no matter where they stand in this registry game, the question has not been answered as to the global standing of the collection. And even if it were considered the finest, this is like saying that I have the prettiest wife. Such comparisons, on some level, are nonsense.

 

So, what has been harmed? Perhaps the economy of the series that gathers a new strike designation will change. If you are a serious collector, then you should be prepared for such changes, strike designations or not. It's still up to the collector to consider how to spend their money.

 

One other note... I think that Sunnywood and others have said repeatedly that the strike designation is only one part of the grade. I have to differ: it is not a part of the grade. The grade is attained from the overall character of the strike (fullness, well-struckness, if you will) and a whole bunch of other features of the coin. Whether the feature that acquires the strike designation is intact or not has only a coincidental impact on the grade of the coin, and it's a good thing. For if we were to base grades of coins on whether "full this's or that's" were present, then we'd miss a lot of great coins.

 

Okay, one more thing: Full Strike designation. Great! Bring it on, but add it in, as again it is not wholly relevant to the determination of grade. And if we bring on Full Strike, then we also need, FL (Full Lustre), EDS (early die state), MDS (middle die state), LDS (late die state), etc., etc. Actually, I think that such designations open bigger cans of worms than the strike designations.

 

Fuel for the fire.

 

Hoot

 

p.s. Welcome back Oldtrader3! Glad you're still with us.

[EVillageProwler]

Mr. Montgomery,

 

I feel that TomB has expressed my viewpoint in a more articulate fashion than I did. Strike-based designations are fraught with negatives. But, if we must because the industry clamors for something, then I vote for a FULL STRIKE designation to encompass every aspect of a coin's 3 surfaces for every series.

 

For non-proofs, how often do you see a coin that is truly fully struck up?

 

EVP

 

PS Just to spite Greg, how 'bout doing the FS thing for Seated material first?

[EVillageProwler]

Mark,

 

I think you are mistaken about the contribution of strike to grade, and thus with your comparison of it to die state and luster. For Mint State coins, a gem needs to be well struck, not fully struck. For circs, the strike plays less of a role.

 

(Let's not get into Bust coinage, because they have a whole bunch of special issues that the services struggle with without this additional complexity.)

 

Luster, on the other hand, plays the greatest role in determining the grade of a coin, especially for Mint State specimens.

 

As for NGC's * designation, I am sorta comfortable with that because it is an attempt to assess the eye appeal of a coin by looking at the entire coin instead of simply using a single qualitative criterion (like toning or cameo or whatever).

 

If we have to adopt a FULL STRIKE designation, then I would want it to encompass the fullness of each and every coin in each and every series -- at least for the MS grades.

 

EVP

 

[LucyBop]

I'm the minority in this one, and I respect eveybodys viewpoints.. But I'll say thanks for the new designations, it makes it very fun for me to search for these in raw coins and submit them......

[EVillageProwler]

Actually, Lucy, I would be interested in a more detailed response from you. You specialize in a series that is pretty much the poster child of this debate, and your experience and viewpoint should prove to be particularly relevent -- if you can manage the time...

 

Regards,

 

EVP

 

[LucyBop]

oh, and I vote for more... I can really get into buffalos with a full hornie designation! Be Bop A Lula!!!