Roosies - Why and why not?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

EarlyFederalCoinage

Oops. Never mind. That’s what I get for not reading the entire post before commenting.

EarlyFederalCoinage

On the one hand it seems odd that CAC will accept Eisenhower dollars but it won’t accept pre-1965 U.S. silver business strikes. 

On the other hand I agree that Roosevelt’s can be hard to love.

erwindoc

Roosevelt dimes would be easy enough to pass CAC verification based on grade as I am sure our host has seen enough quality coins to separate the A and B coins from the lower end of the spectrum. What I am not sure is how they feel about the slight difference in the torch designation definition and how that would be applied to their brand.  

Directly from the PCGS site, Full Bands

Term applied to Mercury (Winged Liberty Head) dimes when the central band is fully separated (FB). There can be no disturbance of the separation. Also applicable to Roosevelt dimes that display full separation in both the upper and lower pair of crossbands on the torch.

Directly from the NGC site, NGC began certifying Full Torch (FT) Roosevelt Dimes April 14, 2003. The designation FT for Full Torch will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes having both upper and lower pair of horizontal bands split as well as the vertical lines of the torch being defined. The FT designation will not apply to proof coins. The addition of the FT designation comes at the overwhelming request from NGC's collector and dealer base.

I am not sure if the very subtle definition difference is enough for them to want to stay away.  However, I'm sure that there would be collector interest in at least the 1946-1964 portion of the set.  More modern collectors might eventually want to add the clad portion of the set too, so where exactly do you draw the line? This is a long series that keeps on going.

Martin

I’m Going out on a limb here. And the Roosey gang won’t like me for saying this. Although I have quite a few 3 figure roosies they are widgets. There are plenty to go around in high grades with or without bands.  Sure ms68s are not that abundant I would think that most are solid for the grade and if not they are close like splitting hair. I see CACs value is with rarities, high dollar coins not condition rarities. Like Roosevelt dimes. 

Martin

TheCoinHound

For those of us who have not read the Roosie threads on other forums, what is the current situation/problem? 

u1chicago

erwindoc said:

Roosevelt dimes would be easy enough to pass CAC verification based on grade as I am sure our host has seen enough quality coins to separate the A and B coins from the lower end of the spectrum. What I am not sure is how they feel about the slight difference in the torch designation definition and how that would be applied to their brand.  

Directly from the PCGS site, Full Bands

Term applied to Mercury (Winged Liberty Head) dimes when the central band is fully separated (FB). There can be no disturbance of the separation. Also applicable to Roosevelt dimes that display full separation in both the upper and lower pair of crossbands on the torch.

Directly from the NGC site, NGC began certifying Full Torch (FT) Roosevelt Dimes April 14, 2003. The designation FT for Full Torch will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes having both upper and lower pair of horizontal bands split as well as the vertical lines of the torch being defined. The FT designation will not apply to proof coins. The addition of the FT designation comes at the overwhelming request from NGC's collector and dealer base.

I am not sure if the very subtle definition difference is enough for them to want to stay away.  However, I'm sure that there would be collector interest in at least the 1946-1964 portion of the set.  More modern collectors might eventually want to add the clad portion of the set too, so where exactly do you draw the line? This is a long series that keeps on going.

While PCGS and NGC have different standards for FB/FT on Roosies, they also have different standards for Full Bell Lines on Franklins and that hasn’t stopped CAC from stickering Franklins.

Crypto

They are pocket change until they become an obsolete design. Being small they aren’t even a cool way to own silver like franklins 

EarlyFederalCoinage

erwindoc said:

Roosevelt dimes would be easy enough to pass CAC verification based on grade as I am sure our host has seen enough quality coins to separate the A and B coins from the lower end of the spectrum. What I am not sure is how they feel about the slight difference in the torch designation definition and how that would be applied to their brand.  

Directly from the PCGS site, Full Bands

Term applied to Mercury (Winged Liberty Head) dimes when the central band is fully separated (FB). There can be no disturbance of the separation. Also applicable to Roosevelt dimes that display full separation in both the upper and lower pair of crossbands on the torch.

Directly from the NGC site, NGC began certifying Full Torch (FT) Roosevelt Dimes April 14, 2003. The designation FT for Full Torch will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes having both upper and lower pair of horizontal bands split as well as the vertical lines of the torch being defined. The FT designation will not apply to proof coins. The addition of the FT designation comes at the overwhelming request from NGC's collector and dealer base.

I am not sure if the very subtle definition difference is enough for them to want to stay away.  However, I'm sure that there would be collector interest in at least the 1946-1964 portion of the set.  More modern collectors might eventually want to add the clad portion of the set too, so where exactly do you draw the line? This is a long series that keeps on going.

While PCGS and NGC have different standards for FB/FT on Roosies, they also have different standards for Full Bell Lines on Franklins and that hasn’t stopped CAC from stickering Franklins.

But both are listed as FBL. If CAC adopted PCGS’s more popular standards/FB designation, it would create confusion if it stickered FT coins. Would CAC be stickering that it meet the standards for FT designation or the FB designation? I realize my argument is really one of semantics, but do we really want dozens of threads on the PCGS forums or emails to CAC clarifying any ambiguity?

u1chicago

EarlyFederalCoinage said:

erwindoc said:

Roosevelt dimes would be easy enough to pass CAC verification based on grade as I am sure our host has seen enough quality coins to separate the A and B coins from the lower end of the spectrum. What I am not sure is how they feel about the slight difference in the torch designation definition and how that would be applied to their brand.  

Directly from the PCGS site, Full Bands

Term applied to Mercury (Winged Liberty Head) dimes when the central band is fully separated (FB). There can be no disturbance of the separation. Also applicable to Roosevelt dimes that display full separation in both the upper and lower pair of crossbands on the torch.

Directly from the NGC site, NGC began certifying Full Torch (FT) Roosevelt Dimes April 14, 2003. The designation FT for Full Torch will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes having both upper and lower pair of horizontal bands split as well as the vertical lines of the torch being defined. The FT designation will not apply to proof coins. The addition of the FT designation comes at the overwhelming request from NGC's collector and dealer base.

I am not sure if the very subtle definition difference is enough for them to want to stay away.  However, I'm sure that there would be collector interest in at least the 1946-1964 portion of the set.  More modern collectors might eventually want to add the clad portion of the set too, so where exactly do you draw the line? This is a long series that keeps on going.

While PCGS and NGC have different standards for FB/FT on Roosies, they also have different standards for Full Bell Lines on Franklins and that hasn’t stopped CAC from stickering Franklins.

But both are listed as FBL. If CAC adopted PCGS’s more popular standards/FB designation, it would create confusion if it stickered FT coins. Would CAC be stickering that it meet the standards for FT designation or the FB designation? I realize my argument is really one of semantics, but do we really want dozens of threads on the PCGS forums or emails to CAC clarifying any ambiguity?

Isn't there the same confusion with FBL? When they sticker FBL coins are they using PCGS standards (bottom set of lines) or NGC standards (all the lines on the bell)? Or are they stickering based on the standards of the holder the coin is in? It would be no different with FB/FT: either pick one standard or judge the coin based on the holder it is in.  

erwindoc

u1chicago said:

EarlyFederalCoinage said:

erwindoc said:

Roosevelt dimes would be easy enough to pass CAC verification based on grade as I am sure our host has seen enough quality coins to separate the A and B coins from the lower end of the spectrum. What I am not sure is how they feel about the slight difference in the torch designation definition and how that would be applied to their brand.  

Directly from the PCGS site, Full Bands

Term applied to Mercury (Winged Liberty Head) dimes when the central band is fully separated (FB). There can be no disturbance of the separation. Also applicable to Roosevelt dimes that display full separation in both the upper and lower pair of crossbands on the torch.

Directly from the NGC site, NGC began certifying Full Torch (FT) Roosevelt Dimes April 14, 2003. The designation FT for Full Torch will be applied to Roosevelt Dimes having both upper and lower pair of horizontal bands split as well as the vertical lines of the torch being defined. The FT designation will not apply to proof coins. The addition of the FT designation comes at the overwhelming request from NGC's collector and dealer base.

I am not sure if the very subtle definition difference is enough for them to want to stay away.  However, I'm sure that there would be collector interest in at least the 1946-1964 portion of the set.  More modern collectors might eventually want to add the clad portion of the set too, so where exactly do you draw the line? This is a long series that keeps on going.

While PCGS and NGC have different standards for FB/FT on Roosies, they also have different standards for Full Bell Lines on Franklins and that hasn’t stopped CAC from stickering Franklins.

But both are listed as FBL. If CAC adopted PCGS’s more popular standards/FB designation, it would create confusion if it stickered FT coins. Would CAC be stickering that it meet the standards for FT designation or the FB designation? I realize my argument is really one of semantics, but do we really want dozens of threads on the PCGS forums or emails to CAC clarifying any ambiguity?

Isn't there the same confusion with FBL? When they sticker FBL coins are they using PCGS standards (bottom set of lines) or NGC standards (all the lines on the bell)? Or are they stickering based on the standards of the holder the coin is in? It would be no different with FB/FT: either pick one standard or judge the coin based on the holder it is in.  

Great argument!  Just need to pick one or base standards on the respective TPG?