According to Downies MS67 is now an FDC Fleur De Coin :dodgy:
http://www.downies.com/Royal-Australian-Mint/Australia-2007-50c-Wedding-60th-Anniversary-MS67-FDC/6871/productview.aspx
I wondered why there is 48 of these coins graded at MS67.
IMHO MS67 is Gem Uncirculated NOT FDC.
MS70/PR70 is FDC .
To call these FDC is not only misleading,
Downies are correct.
MS65 is gem unc. Always was.
Most coins seen at public auction or in dealer's books and described as FDC grade as MS or PR 65-67; the remainder lower.
Jim please do not accuse a commercial operation of lying on this forum. If you have an issue with them then take it up with them. Regading the conversion of the grade it's been generally accepted for many years that MS67 is FDC. See Eric's grading chart here:
http://www.drakesterling.com/coins-for-sale/more-information/what-is-pcgs
QuoteJim please do not accuse a commercial operation of lying on this forum
No worries, Sorry Mark.
An MS/PR67 coin is nice but far from a perfect coin and I understand the term FDC means a flawless perfectly struck coin, a 67 is not perfect.
There is some "grey" areas between 69 to 70 but if you put a 67 coin alongside a 69-70 coin there is No comparison , So how can they possibly be considered as FDC ?
Just because some dealers decided that they would lower the standard to make 67 the FDC benchmark doesn't make them correct , I am absolutely certain that if I took a 67 coin into a dealer he wouldn't pay me 69-70 prices for it.
QuoteMost coins seen at public auction or in dealer's books and described as FDC grade as MS or PR 65-67
So that means a 65 can be "touted" as FDC and sold as such to a buyer expecting to get a perfect coin.
Why not just call the 67 coins an exemplary or outstanding Gem instead of saying it is a perfect coin, which it obviously isn't because a 67 is all that it graded at :ok:
I have previous bought coins described as Gem which were lucky to get a MS64 and FDC coins that were far from it.
Maybe this practice of calling a 67 coin FDC is right up there with selling cleaned coins as well as far as I am concerned.
now ... this coin is the one from the little holder isn't it?
they weren't issued for circulation ? (me thinks)
so they are probably closer to a specimen strike to begin with ?
good grief - what is wrong with calling a well struck coin FDC
when I enlarged downies photo the coin looked fabulous (to moi)
I am not saying a MS67 isn't a nice example, What I am saying it isn't Perfect or FDC :ok:
Here are 2 2015 MOR coins.
1 is MS67 the other is PR70, you can clearly see the minor faults on the 67 coin.
I am not saying the MS67 coin isn't a nice example, What I am saying is it isn't Perfect or FDC :ok:
MS67
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/not_fdc.jpg)
FDC PR70DCAM
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/fdc.jpg)
MS 67 or MS 70 have no difference apart from a split hair opinion
I suggest you take your argument to PCGS
If I bought a raw (Commonwealth or gold) coin described as FDC and it graded 67 I would be happy.
However if I bought a raw decimal coin described as FDC and it graded 67 I would be disappointed.
I'd expect more.
I think I know what trout is getting at and I'd agree for decimals especially the more recent issues..
But a generic statement that MS67 is not FCD is just wrong in my opinion.
Because it depends on the context.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='83468' dateline='1452081601'I think I know what trout is getting at and I'd agree for decimals especially the more recent issues..
But a generic statement that MS67 is not FCD is just wrong in my opinion.
Because it depends on the context.
If it depends on the context, how can it be a STANDARD? I thought the purpose of the Sheldon scale was to allow us a way to quantify the qualities of a coin so we could reliably compare 2 different coins?
Quote from: 'runway' pid='83467' dateline='1452078875'I suggest you take your argument to PCGS
You missed the point here Peter, trout is arguing that the conversion from the PCGS grade to an adjectival grade is wrong. PCGS has nothing to do with that. Thanks for your input though.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='83468' dateline='1452081601'If I bought a raw (Commonwealth or gold) coin described as FDC and it graded 67 I would be happy.
However if I bought a raw decimal coin described as FDC and it graded 67 I would be disappointed.
I'd expect more.
I think I know what trout is getting at and I'd agree for decimals especially the more recent issues..
But a generic statement that MS67 is not FCD is just wrong in my opinion.
Because it depends on the context.
A voice of reason!
QuoteIf it depends on the context, how can it be a STANDARD? I thought the purpose of the Sheldon scale was to allow us a way to quantify the qualities of a coin so we could reliably compare 2 different coins?
:agreed:
The acceptance and understanding of the "Sheldon" grading system in Australia is still in its infancy so the use of the ANDA grading system is needed to explain the Sheldon number and prefix.
I can understand that, what I don't accept is the practice of calling a MS/PR67 coin FDC, it should be described as "nearly" FDC :ok:
The sooner the Australian Numismatic community learn to understand the "Sheldon" system the sooner the practice of calling a MS/PR67 FDC coin will disappear .
With the older predecimals finding a coin that will grade MS69-70 is pretty much an impossibility, just like any other older coin worldwide the effects of time has taken its toll on them and the possibility of finding a coin that grades 67 is pretty much as good as it gets.
Maybe this is why calling a MS67 coin FDC has become "Acceptable" as normally this is the best condition these coins can be found.
With the modern decimal coins this ideology doesn't hold water as coins MS/PR67 or better ARE available .
QuoteMS 67 or MS 70 have no difference apart from a split hair opinion
If that is your opinion then I am of the opinion that you need to work on your grading skills because there is quite a difference between a 67 coin and a 70 coin.
QuoteI suggest you take your argument to PCGS
This has absolutely nothing to do with PCGS or any other grading company.
This is all about the culture of dealers calling a 67 coin FDC.
Trout put up some photos of your slabs MS67 MS68 MS69 MS70 with same coin and comment in each what the difference is
Quote from: 'matttheriley' pid='83469' dateline='1452100979'Quote from: 'echidna' pid='83468' dateline='1452081601'I think I know what trout is getting at and I'd agree for decimals especially the more recent issues..
But a generic statement that MS67 is not FCD is just wrong in my opinion.
Because it depends on the context.
If it depends on the context, how can it be a STANDARD? I thought the purpose of the Sheldon scale was to allow us a way to quantify the qualities of a coin so we could reliably compare 2 different coins?
The PCGS grading standard is the consistent standard. It is the Australian grading standard whose "standard" depends on context. (ie, a QEII threepence described as "UNC" might grade MS65 but a Jubilee head sovereign described as "UNC" might grade as MS61. The sovereign is full of bag marks, while the threepence has hardly any, so how do Australian dealers justify calling them both "UNC". Where is the standard?).
Buying coins in Australia has always been a "Crap shoot" with the way the ANDA system has been interpreted and used.
With the advent of NGC and PCGS graded coins being accepted on the market because of their grading consistency and accuracy it has become so much easier to obtain a coin in a true grade and not some BS grade a coin is given by a dealer/seller with a vested interest.
With these "Slabbed" coins being graded using the "Sheldon" system it has created some confusion with collectors that don't yet fully understand the numerical grades of 1-70.
1 being virtually a slug and 70 being FDC and there are numerous websites/links for conversions back to the ANDA system available for all the numerical grades in-between.
This brings me back to my original point.
Using the Sheldon system only a coin graded as 70 is perfect and is regarded as being FDC, all the coins graded 69 and lesser are NOT perfect/FDC because of some flaw however minor that precludes the coin from obtaining a 70/FDC grade.
There is a large difference in quality at a 67 grade to a 70 grade and a MS/PR/SP 67 coin is just that.
It isn't perfect so it shouldn't be considered as a FDC coin regardless of who says it is.
Once collectors get savvy with the use of the Sheldon system the ability of dealers/sellers being able to pull the wool over collectors eyes will be gone :yahoo:
FDC most likely has 3 or so FDC classifications?
unc
specimen
proof
comparing a proof strike with an unc strike is like chalk and cheese
it probably explains why many unc coins that grade so highly command such prices - it's rare
an unc coin can never be 'perfect' but I believe it can assume a FDC status within the parameters of the business strike minting methods
FDC was I thought associated with strike, beauty and rarity of thus
plus one has to look at the coin not the just the number
the one thing with this PCGS business is that the beauty of the coin is far less of a consideration than the numbers and the resulting marketable values
ps my coin dealer has often referred to a MS66 in the penny halfpenny as very much FDC - he says you can't get much higher than that in those issues
he does the little Italian style "kiss" with the fingers - mamma mia that is a true beauty
Quotemy coin dealer has often referred to a MS66 in the penny halfpenny as very much FDC
If that is the case what would your dealer call a MS67 penny/half penny or a PR68 penny/halfpenny ?
If MS/PR 66 is considered to be FDC how come these coins exist as a 66 is a perfect coin according to your dealer?
An MS66 penny/half penny is a very desirable coin and "Tough" to find in this grade but it doesn't make them FDC it just makes them rare .
The term FDC is used to describe a coin that is perfect in every way and a 66 coin isn't flawless.
There isn't a pre decimal coin graded higher than a 68 so there are conditionally rare coins but none have as yet been graded by PCGS as FDC.
With the decimal coins however there are several coins graded at 70 which are in fact FDC and my original post was concerned with decimal coins graded at MS67 being described as FDC.
Descriptive gradings are very subjective and can mean different things to different people or in different countries -have a look at the links below ("FDC" could mean anything from MS60 to PR70; a large range).
The Sheldon scale is an objective standard meant to avoid this confusion. So to link descriptive terms to the Sheldon scale (except in very broad terms) doesn't really make much sense -I know, everyone does it anyway. We need to use only Sheldon grades where precision is necessary. Nothing wrong with descriptive terms amongst friends but, as soon as people start throwing in "about/almost", "g", "+" modifiers to narrow down the grade then the deficiencies of descriptive grading should become obvious.
We are still not quite there yet. As soon as I see mention of 'crossover' from one grader to another I think there is still a problem somewhere.
How International Grading Scales Compare to PCGS (http://www.pcgseurope.com/Grading/Comparison?l=en)
Coin grading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading)
Third Party Coin Grading Services (http://coinauctionshelp.com/page16.html#.Vo7zBx7jF2x)
At the risk of dragging this off topic, I think we need to be very mindful of not accepting in blind faith anything that someone else is trying to tell/sell us. Yes, there are inconsistencies with the adjectival system, and the gaps into which we may fall are sometimes broad and will equate to relevant values. But, so too can there be inconsistencies in the Sheldon system where for example the disparity between MS68 and MS69, or MS69 and MS70 may not be great, but if it's the difference between top of the pops or runner up, the value certainly will be.
I see it all in a similar vein to how our major sport in this country is administered. In the days before endless television replays the ref. made a decision, right or wrong, and those looking through two eyes went along with it while those looking through one eye booed. Today with the focus on perfection and replay after replay, there are just as many wrong calls as ever before, and while the margin of error is so much closer, the result will always be the same and the spectators still boo.
BTW there's nothing wrong with striving for perfection. :)
Quote from: 'matttheriley' pid='83469' dateline='1452100979'Quote from: 'echidna' pid='83468' dateline='1452081601'I think I know what trout is getting at and I'd agree for decimals especially the more recent issues..
But a generic statement that MS67 is not FCD is just wrong in my opinion.
Because it depends on the context.
If it depends on the context, how can it be a STANDARD? I thought the purpose of the Sheldon scale was to allow us a way to quantify the qualities of a coin so we could reliably compare 2 different coins?
You miss the point entirely. The problem isn't with the Sheldon scale but with the adjectival scale. An MS67 pre decimal and a MS67 decimal are of the same standard under the Sheldon scale but if you go to the subjective adjectives then the adjectives would vary.
Just look at the adjective Ch Unc. Now for a 1937 crown most collectors would consider a crown that makes MS63 as Choice and would consider a few dings etc as normal. But for a 1964 threepence a coin with the same level of imperfections (and also MS63) the collector would consider that coin as the inferior portion of coins when he opens a mint roll and just Unc.