Sword

The saving grace is that they are faking these in silver plated base metal. The problem will be more serious if they start using sterling silver for forgeries.

I am a little confused with what is the “current†accepted definition of FDC. At the beginning of my coin collecting days, I have taken FDC to mean the perfect coin, i.e. without contact marks, wear or hairlines and perfectly struck. Hence only proof coins can ever be graded as FDC and this definition is similar to the American MS 70. Then it soon occurred to me that no coin can really be “perfect†especially under magnification. Some auction houses are happy to describe their predecimal proof coins as FDC but there are virtually always defects even visible to the naked eyes. Others prefer the terms aFDC or nFDC or FDC with “defects†described. What are your expectations of this grade?

Merry Christmas to you too Coinery!!

Might be it is best to leave discussions regarding slabbing and TPGs at least until the festive season is over? Lets wound down rather than heat up before Christmas! :) :)

Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins. There are lots of sweeping faint lines on your photo of the coin Sword, what do you put those down to? I am not sure why it has toned like that. I can't see any hairlines under magnification and it is much less noticeable in real life. Photo 2 attached.

Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins.

That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect. Some interesting ideas, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status. If a proof silver coin has not been impaired by light dipping (i.e. it has retained its full lustre and is blazing white afterwards)then I think it would be difficult to deny it the FDC grade. Afterall, no one can prove it has actually been dipped if no damage has been done? (I have never dipped a coin before and so am only thinking about this as a theoretical situaltion. Is it even possible to dip a coin without damaging it in someway?) I feel that the seller would be misrepresenting the truth if describing a dipped item as FDC. If I knew, then I certainly wouldn't accept such an item as FDC ~ would you ? Interesting question! I would certainly prefer to collect coins that have not been tempered with in anyway. Hence, I do prefer nicely toned silver coins over blazing white ones. But what if a coin has not been damaged by dipping and has changed hands several times since .... Then the latest owner / seller might not be any wiser. Personally, I would want to pay less (as a matter of principle) if I suspect a coin has been previously dipped but has full lustre. It will tone back in time in anycase. However, I am unlikely to buy it altogether if the lustre has been dulled by dipping.

That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect. Some interesting ideas, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status. If a proof silver coin has not been impaired by light dipping (i.e. it has retained its full lustre and is blazing white afterwards)then I think it would be difficult to deny it the FDC grade. Afterall, no one can prove it has actually been dipped if no damage has been done? (I have never dipped a coin before and so am only thinking about this as a theoretical situaltion. Is it even possible to dip a coin without damaging it in someway?)

Some interesting thoughts, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status.

That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect.

Vicky, here are the photos of the '65 in question. Sorry the original photos are too big for posting and hence the small images. (If you want the original images, then log on the cgs website. Type in "20205" in the UIN box. Then you get the images.)

Most VIP proofs wouldn't cost any more than a common uncirculated larger silver Victorian coin - say £500 to a couple £K, so we aren't talking megabucks here. In fact a lot of people are prepared to spend far more on currency coins than they would have to lay out for a VIP proof, particularly in the penny department. I've occasionally thought about VIP proofs, but unless they are of an existing rarity (1949 3d, say), then I can't see the appeal - most post-1937 VIPs look no better than your average 1950 1951 or 1953 proof coin anyway. It's rarity appeal only, and as you say, much better to get a decent currency 18th or 19th Century coin instead. I think we all share the same opinion. I am not "prepared" to pay £500 for a VIP proof but am happy to pay more for a decent 19th / 18th century currency piece. Hence I only consider them to be "quite" interesting. Rarity certainly has some appeal but that alone is not enough for me to part with a lot of money.

That's understandable. The olympics is indeed one of the things worth commenorating!

and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay I have got almost no interest in modern commens (and hence have even forgotten about their existence earlier). I used the word "almost" as VIP proofs can be quite interesting but cost more than I would ever be prepared to pay. Why would anyone want to collect "coins" that are usually produced in huge numbers, often uninspiring in design and are always abundantly availabe in untouched condidtion? One of the first things I learnt as a kid was to never buy any Isle of man coins as they commenorated anything and everything.

I am only saying that it is not a crime to deface a coin (e.g. by pressing it into a token). However, it (most likely) won't be legal tender afterwards!

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins. Defacement of coins used to be an offence. In the old days people have received the death penalty for clipping silver coins (e.g. Thomas Rogers). The 1936 coinage Offenses act prohibited the defacement of "current" coins. However, the defacement of any coin has been legal since 1981 when a new act came into force (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act). Hence you see notices next to machines which allow you to press pennies into souvenirs saying that the practice is legal.

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors! You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem. I remember seeing that 1902 crown in the auction catalouge but did not bid for it. A thought crossed my mind then. If someone brought that crown and had it slabbed by CGS, then the holder would make it very difficult to see the only interesting feature of it! (But the NGC type would allow the edge to be seen. Just a passing mention;I certainly don't to get that topic started again :) ) I think opinion is split whether the 1902 is a commenorative or not. Everyone would agree that all old head crowns are circulating issues and the last was 1900 LXIII. Victoria died in Jan 1901. The 1902 was Edward VII's coronation crown and so there is no real break in the series. As Peckris pointed out, the mintage was similar to the previous years. We have all seen lots of worn 1902s and those have definately been circulated for long periods. A true gem unc circulating type is rare. Hence I would consider it to be the last of the ciculating crowns.If people were told that it was commemorative and no more ciculating crowns will be minted, then might be many more in top condition? Also, George V did not have a coronation crown. This could suggest that the idea of commenorative crowns wasn't popular at the beginning of the 20 century.

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem. I remember seeing that 1902 crown in the auction catalouge but did not bid for it. A thought crossed my mind then. If someone brought that crown and had it slabbed by CGS, then the holder would make it very difficult to see the only interesting feature of it! (But the NGC type would allow the edge to be seen. Just a passing mention;I certainly don't to get that topic started again :) ) I think opinion is split whether the 1902 is a commenorative or not. Everyone would agree that all old head crowns are circulating issues and the last was 1900 LXIII. Victoria died in Jan 1901. The 1902 was Edward VII's coronation crown and so there is no real break in the series. As Peckris pointed out, the mintage was similar to the previous years. We have all seen lots of worn 1902s and those have definately been circulated for long periods. A true gem unc circulating type is rare. Hence I would consider it to be the last of the ciculating crowns.If people were told that it was commemorative and no more ciculating crowns will be minted, then might be many more in top condition?

cgs used to slab any coin (even polished) without grading for £5. However, I think they have stopped doing that as this service has been removed from their current price list.

if in acid i would have imagined the whole coin to be affected not just a liitle bit as shown. as acid makes a mess of anything Acid will affect all areas equally so the thin areas will go first, but you will retain a surprising amount of definition Putting a penny into concentrated nitric acid is a fun school "experiment". The copper gets oxidised leaving the steel penny behind. If done properly, you will end up with a very nice steel penny with the details of the coin preserved. If you are in a bit of a hurry and put a load of pennies in (with some on top of others), you often end up with patches of copper on the pennies. (However, poisonous brown fumes are produced in the process and it is not something to try at home!)

You MAY be right about a "coin worth many thousands", but actually, in those cases I doubt very much that a slabbing will affect the value much if at all. It's lower value items where a slab - rightly or wrongly - can add so much value. As for constructive criticism: 1. Dave has already pointed out, TPG companies do make mistakes, and fakes have been noted. So much for a cast-iron guarantee. 2. Storage - for those of us who own nice mahogany cabinets with proper 'cut outs', the slab is a disaster area. They cannot be stored in any of the traditional coin storage media, and they take up a hell of a lot of room. 3. Photography - very difficult if not impossible to take a decent picture, which is essential if selling. 4. Insurance - I have my own database which not only has scans of every coin that is worth more than £15-£20, but - unlike a slab - has the date purchased, where from, how much paid, notes on any distinguishing features, etc etc. More use to an insurance assessor than a slab that's ... oh, gone! stolen! 5. Handling - yes, those of us who own nice coins actually DO like to handle them every now and again.. wearing cotton gloves.. holding and tilting to view in just the right light.. examining through a loupe for any unsuspected varieties.. A slab makes all of that difficult. As for preserving its condition, you only have to look at Royal Mint proof sets from the 1970s to see how well sealed coins are 'protected' - true, you can't scratch them, but they can tone UGLY. Those who like slabs will continue to sing their praises no doubt, but there is a majority against them in this forum at least. I have a somewhat love-hate relationship with slabs. On one hand, I will not buy a slabbed coin unseen, as even a high grade (assuming it has acutally been accurately assessed) is no guarantee of decent eye appeal. I always avoid coins with bad toning, (large) carbon spots, scratches in prominent positions, small edge knocks etc and these "defects" are not directly indicated by the grade. Secondly, I agree that slabs can inflate the price of the coin inside (especially if the grade is high)and the asking price can be unrealistically high. Hence I rarely buy slabbed coins. Slabs (e.g. those of CGS) can make examining the edge difficult but the NGC slabs are much better in this aspect. I also find that many people do bash the slabs a bit and even the holders of coins slabbed recently can pick up a lot of scracthes / marks which reduce the pleasure when viewing. Also I am a believer than vintage speciemen / proof coins should always be with their original boxes and I consider a coin to be "incomplete" otherwise. Having said that, I do confess that I have slabbed the high grade (UNC to GEF) coins that I particularly like. I don't do it for the grading but for protection. I do like to enjoy looking at these coins without worring about gloves, dust, accidentially dropping them or breathing too close to them. Many TPG companies do take photo of coins. CGS photos are generally not too bad as they were taken before slabbing. (But NGC photos taken after slabbings are pretty useless). With regard to coins toning ugly in slabs, I wonder why don't the TPG companies slab coins under an inert atmosphere? Slabbing in dry Argon (or even plain cheap nitrogen)will not result in silver toning assuming the slab is air tight.

It's good isn't it. I can just make out the repair to the reverse but obverse is undetectable. Really amazing. Even the toning on the repaired bit looks right. Just out of interest, how much does it cost to get something like this done?

Hello All I have been reading the posts on the forum for quite a while and is now making now making my first post. I used to collect coins as a kid and have restarted the hobby a few years back. I like to collect crown size coins and have only got a very small collection. I brought the few coins I have from auctions and have to leave absentee bids as I generally cannot attend. The problem I found is that the auction photos are often not great and the actual coins, when in hand, can be half a grade out from the description sometimes. I therfore bid conservatively and don't win things often (Just as well as my budget is modest). Anyway, I would like to share images of my two favourite coins: a high grade 1898 crown with a very nice golden tone and an 1818 crown. The 1818 crown was slabbed by cgs as a new variety to them (second 1 in 1818 with no serif) and graded EF70. Like most members, I don't slab coins because I need someone to tell me the grade but I like to be able to look at both sides easily and can enjoy the coins in a shaded corner of the garden! I have only seen one other 1818 crown with on serif to second 1 and that was on ebay. Photos to follow: