Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

I particularly dislike the term "choice FDC" used by a London auction house. If FDC is perfect, then what on earth is "choice FDC"? They recently described a 1935 raised edge proof crown as choice FDC and the said coin has been slabbed by CGS as UNC88. UNC88 (88 out of 100) is hardly perfect in the first place! I think one might reasonably conclude that coins they describe as plain "FDC" are even less perfect.

They have also used the terms "AFDC" and "choice FDC or near so" which I think are even more meaningless.

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I particularly dislike the term "choice FDC" used by a London auction house. If FDC is perfect, then what on earth is "choice FDC"? They recently described a 1935 raised edge proof crown as choice FDC and the said coin has been slabbed by CGS as UNC88. UNC88 (88 out of 100) is hardly perfect in the first place! I think one might reasonably conclude that coins they describe as plain "FDC" are even less perfect.

They have also used the terms "AFDC" and "choice FDC or near so" which I think are even more meaningless.

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique").

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another incredible Spink web site story.

Press the tab "order now" when trying to purchase the 2013 Coins of England and you wont be asked for your credit card, instead you'll get an automatically produced email telling the books department that you would like a copy. Wow, this is Internet functionality in the 1990's at its best! Are they kidding, the system should already know I am interested in purchasing this book from my choices on the web site - right? Is it so hard to include a shopping cart and checkout facility Spink? - this has been around a while you know guys.

Moreover, the email does not include any of my personal details that need to be added manually. Wow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins!

Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins!

Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system.

Totally agree Derek, experienced dealers and sellers shouldn't describe the grade simply as 'proof', laziness at best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another incredible Spink web site story.

Press the tab "order now" when trying to purchase the 2013 Coins of England and you wont be asked for your credit card, instead you'll get an automatically produced email telling the books department that you would like a copy. Wow, this is Internet functionality in the 1990's at its best! Are they kidding, the system should already know I am interested in purchasing this book from my choices on the web site - right? Is it so hard to include a shopping cart and checkout facility Spink? - this has been around a while you know guys.

Moreover, the email does not include any of my personal details that need to be added manually. Wow!

It will depend on what sort of encryption level they choose. If you don't store customer or card details, you can simplify the system, otherwise you fall foul of the Data Protection laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Press the tab "order now" when trying to purchase the 2013 Coins of England...

You should have just asked me, Nicholas! No Spink trouble. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can.

Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use.

I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins!

Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system.

I am certainly no expert and is probably a bit naive when it comes to grading. But I think there can be difficulties when we use the same terms for grading top end proof and currency coins. A curreny coin at GEF has a definate amount of wear (or at least a rather high number of minor contact marks). Hence I think it is too harsh to describe a proof coin as such if it has the slightest impairment such as a single tiny contact mark or a couple of faint hairlines. I think such a coin should at least be described as UNC as an UNC currenty coin allows a few minor contact marks (or even a bit of cabinet friction (aka very minor wear)). Slightly impaired proof coins have never been circulated and has only been slightly mishandled at some point. Hence describing them as UNC seem OK to me. Otherwise the GEF term would cover coins in a rather wide range of conditions.

If it were up to me, I would use the follwing grades for proof coins: FDC (perfect), PAS (with very slight impairment), UNC (with more minor contact marks or hairlines but has never been used as currency. Hence no wear and reflective fields and damage is still only caused by mishandling)and then GEF (if it has acutally been circulated and has wear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Derek, experienced dealers and sellers shouldn't describe the grade simply as 'proof', laziness at best!

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws?

Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash.

In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise.

In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Derek, experienced dealers and sellers shouldn't describe the grade simply as 'proof', laziness at best!

Gulp! Guilty as charged - only on occasion though. The reason being that FDC demands perfection and the vast bulk of coins I have seen described this way just haven't been perfect. I am cursed with myopia which means my short range vision is extremely acute and as soon as I look at a coin I see scratches or minor damage of some sort. This can itself be a blessing or a curse, and let's face it nothing made by man is perfect. So where should we draw the line, perfect to the naked eye? with an eyeglass? or should we accept that everything however well-intentioned does contain some flaws?

Personally, I think the problem lies in the description for FDC that Spink and others trot out. I would need some time to dream up a more appropriate description but frankly 'perfection' just doesn't wash.

In addition to this, I think we do need a second tier for proof coins but don't think PAS is quite right, as it is already used by some dealers to describe the very best currency pieces (e.g. by Michael Gouby on base metal pieces exceeding 95% lustre). This is one area where I think the Sheldon scale has it over traditional grading descriptions, as without resorting to words it is quite possible to bring a coin down ever so slightly from Mount Olympus without damning it with faint praise.

In a nutshell therefore I want a better way of describing proof coins without resorting to lies (nothing is 'perfect') or using a soul-less numerical method of grading (the Sheldon scale)!

Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another incredible Spink web site story.

Press the tab "order now" when trying to purchase the 2013 Coins of England and you wont be asked for your credit card, instead you'll get an automatically produced email telling the books department that you would like a copy. Wow, this is Internet functionality in the 1990's at its best! Are they kidding, the system should already know I am interested in purchasing this book from my choices on the web site - right? Is it so hard to include a shopping cart and checkout facility Spink? - this has been around a while you know guys.

Moreover, the email does not include any of my personal details that need to be added manually. Wow!

LOL That's the internet equivalent to Foyles, where you used to queue to take your book to a sales counter who would give you a slip of paper that you then took to queue at the cashiers who would ask you for the money and then you'd have to return to the sales desk with your stamped (paid) slip of paper to be given the book you wanted in the first place.

Ah, I miss those days. Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put penny collectors in there or anyone who doesn't like early copper B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put penny collectors in there or anyone who doesn't like early copper B)

:blink::o:unsure::o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

Yes but... here are a couple of cases in point. Both of these were fresh out of a sealed 1970 set. Neither qualify for FDC in my view, and in point of fact, left the mint that way, the first because it's got a couple of minor scratches on the bust and the second because some bozo at the mint has stuck his thumb on it! If these were not proof, you could still describe them as Unc, the first for the reason that 'bag abrasions' are permitted, the second because toning doesn't affect a coin's uncirculated status. But as proof coins, they don't as I have said qualify for FDC, 'uncirculated' goes without saying and really doesn't help us much, GEF implies some wear which they patently haven't got and I really don't want to go down the route of calling them AFDC because that is utter gibberish! So what do I call them?

Perhaps I ought to get out more...

post-798-011981800 1359225498_thumb.jpg

post-798-013250400 1359225530_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

Yes but... here are a couple of cases in point. Both of these were fresh out of a sealed 1970 set. Neither qualify for FDC in my view, and in point of fact, left the mint that way, the first because it's got a couple of minor scratches on the bust and the second because some bozo at the mint has stuck his thumb on it! If these were not proof, you could still describe them as Unc, the first for the reason that 'bag abrasions' are permitted, the second because toning doesn't affect a coin's uncirculated status. But as proof coins, they don't as I have said qualify for FDC, 'uncirculated' goes without saying and really doesn't help us much, GEF implies some wear which they patently haven't got and I really don't want to go down the route of calling them AFDC because that is utter gibberish! So what do I call them?

Perhaps I ought to get out more...

Maybe we should just go back to the old-fashioned way: Impaired Proof. Proof with a pawprint. Proof with a scratch. Maybe only allow one grade for Proofs - FDC, and everything else just gets a description, unless it's got proper circulation wear, in which case it can go into the normal system.

Not very smart commercially, of course - may as well consign them to the "Will never sell" bucket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely proof is a process not a grade. Normal grading should apply but substitute FDC for UNC.

Yes but... here are a couple of cases in point. Both of these were fresh out of a sealed 1970 set. Neither qualify for FDC in my view, and in point of fact, left the mint that way, the first because it's got a couple of minor scratches on the bust and the second because some bozo at the mint has stuck his thumb on it! If these were not proof, you could still describe them as Unc, the first for the reason that 'bag abrasions' are permitted, the second because toning doesn't affect a coin's uncirculated status. But as proof coins, they don't as I have said qualify for FDC, 'uncirculated' goes without saying and really doesn't help us much, GEF implies some wear which they patently haven't got and I really don't want to go down the route of calling them AFDC because that is utter gibberish! So what do I call them?

Perhaps I ought to get out more...

Toning doesn't usually affect FDC status, but it doesn't apply to 'bozo thumbprint" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in Australia the grades for proofs are FDC, aFDC and then anything else is just impaired, though I've never seen an impaired proof in a 2x2 to see what actual grade it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Room 101. No-one has mentioned the Royal Mint who are the ultimate in ripping off collectors, mainly young and starter collectors.

£8 for the new 50p and £10 for a £2 piece. Not the best way to encourage new blood. I know they have to make a profit, but obvious an attempt to rip off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The royal mint in room 101?

A bit harsh on a coin collecting / numismatic forum.

A bit like a dog lover hateing crufts :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Room 101. No-one has mentioned the Royal Mint who are the ultimate in ripping off collectors, mainly young and starter collectors.

£8 for the new 50p and £10 for a £2 piece. Not the best way to encourage new blood. I know they have to make a profit, but obvious an attempt to rip off?

Any collector with a tiny bit of experience would probably agree that the Royal Mint prices are frightful. However, charging someone, say £50 for a commenorative coin that can only be resold for £10 is no worse than other companies trying to make the same margin with a bone china plate or mug. They are in my view just running posh sovenir shop. What worries me is that if someone were naive enough to buy gold soverigns directly from the mint as an "investment". It would be a very good idea if they can be forced to quote the bullion values of their high values coins!

Also, I think it is totally unexcusable when they buy old coins from open market and try to sell them at sky high prices. E.g. Oxford_Collector pointed out earlier in the year when they tried to sell a VF double florin (with a silver 20p piece) for £145. No respectable seller can charge so much beyond standard book prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auction hoses postal charges,one recently wanted to charge me £5 postage plus £5.90 special delivery for a one penny coin :(:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich City :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich City :rolleyes:

Don't you mean Luton Town Peter? :P

My postmanperson. Who yet again popped a Sign For package through the door without getting a signature. Seriously, if I wasn't such an honest chap (and it'd cause a headache for the seller) I'd be tempted to say I never got it and demand compensation. Thankfully it was the correct address and it was untampered with, but I do worry one day it won't be ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×