MS67 Now equals FDC ??

[trout]

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:

[robbiegal]

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

[trout]

my 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.

[JeffH]

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
Coin grading
Third Party Coin Grading Services

[autocoupler]

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.

[nealeffendi]

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.