MS67 Now equals FDC ??

trout · January 06, 2016, 03:18:23 AM

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,

emu666 · January 06, 2016, 07:46:21 AM

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.

markn · January 06, 2016, 08:16:24 AM

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

trout · January 06, 2016, 01:04:20 PM

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.

robbiegal · January 06, 2016, 08:54:54 PM

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)

trout · January 06, 2016, 09:35:22 PM

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

FDC PR70DCAM

runway · January 06, 2016, 09:39:22 PM

MS 67 or MS 70 have no difference apart from a split hair opinion

runway · January 06, 2016, 09:44:35 PM

I suggest you take your argument to PCGS

echidna · January 06, 2016, 10:30:01 PM

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.

matttheriley · January 07, 2016, 03:52:59 AM

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?

markn · January 07, 2016, 06:29:28 AM

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.

markn · January 07, 2016, 06:29:58 AM

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!

trout · January 07, 2016, 06:47:23 AM

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.

runway · January 07, 2016, 09:36:08 PM

Trout put up some photos of your slabs MS67 MS68 MS69 MS70 with same coin and comment in each what the difference is

drakesterling · January 07, 2016, 10:13:27 PM

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?).