FDC Grade

[Sword]

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?

[Peckris]

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?

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint.

FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky!

[Coinery]

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?

I'd personally like the term reserved for coins that are perfect from a collectors point of view for type, meaning also that a rich-toned (without blemishes) g3 copper could also be described as FDC, though it's obviously not as it left the mint, on account of its tarnish!

I think bag marks should not be majorly present, if at all, separating it from its mint-brethren as a 'lucky' coin and, I guess that's it, it stands separate from all other coins! We know when we've seen them! I once had a toned G5 penny that I felt I could call FDC! I wish I'd kept it!

Whether it's an E2 penny, or a James1 shilling, you know what a perfect one can look like! At J1 level, I'd romantically like to think that you might have no more than a dozen FDC examples for a variety and, at the E2 penny end, for it still to prove difficult to find an absolutely perfect coin (even from unopened mint rolls)!

IMO

Peck, I promise you I was still writing mine when you posted your's!

Edited December 14, 2012 by Coinery

[azda]

My aFDC halfcrown (matte proof) only because of the flattening to the rim, funnily enough i saw one in auction recently with the same flat spot and wonder if this was a minting flaw?

[Gary D]

My aFDC halfcrown (matte proof) only because of the flattening to the rim, funnily enough i saw one in auction recently with the same flat spot and wonder if this was a minting flaw?

I have always been of the opinion that the FDC grade was only applicable to proof coins with the top grade for currency being UNC

[Rob]

My aFDC halfcrown (matte proof) only because of the flattening to the rim, funnily enough i saw one in auction recently with the same flat spot and wonder if this was a minting flaw?

or Chinese?

Two identical flat spots could be a coincidence, but a larger number of these would imply as struck characteristics. Best thing would be to look for these in their original box as few sets will have been made up in recent times, thus eliminating recent copies.

[azda]

It was spinks or another british auction house i'm sure Rob but was in a different Position to mine

[VickySilver]

Not sure how FDC coins have to be of proof strike. A coin with full mint bloom and without bag marks would be the virtual definition, but I think the "n' or "a" prefix has some validity as the minutest of marks missed by some are picked up by others with more acute observation powers or vision. Probably most "68" or "69" coins would fit this definition as well as the 70s, but of either proof or currency format.

Azda's coin is rather nice but the rim dent or deflection would keep it out of that category, most def. post-minting. I have seen a matte proof 1953 with such an edge "deflection" that I think was caused by a soft hammer strike. Otherwise nice surfaces though. Interesting that as was pointed out in the Coincraft book, it seems that virtually all the matte proof 1902s were given an extra wipe by the workcrew before being packaged up in sets - how much does this bother others?

As for me, I would rather not have them present but at least if they are more subdued, then a bit better. These marks are sometimes difficult to pick up in the wrong lighting, and I have also noted in the areas of what is perhaps micro abrasion to be slightly varied toning.

[Gary D]

Not sure how FDC coins have to be of proof strike. A coin with full mint bloom and without bag marks would be the virtual definition, but I think the "n' or "a" prefix has some validity as the minutest of marks missed by some are picked up by others with more acute observation powers or vision. Probably most "68" or "69" coins would fit this definition as well as the 70s, but of either proof or currency format.

Azda's coin is rather nice but the rim dent or deflection would keep it out of that category, most def. post-minting. I have seen a matte proof 1953 with such an edge "deflection" that I think was caused by a soft hammer strike. Otherwise nice surfaces though. Interesting that as was pointed out in the Coincraft book, it seems that virtually all the matte proof 1902s were given an extra wipe by the workcrew before being packaged up in sets - how much does this bother others?

As for me, I would rather not have them present but at least if they are more subdued, then a bit better. These marks are sometimes difficult to pick up in the wrong lighting, and I have also noted in the areas of what is perhaps micro abrasion to be slightly varied toning.

Spinks only attribute the FDC grade to proofs, everything else UNC

[1949threepence]

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?

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint.

FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky!

1973 FDC proof set for sale ~ slightly toned

[Peckris]

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?

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint.

FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky!

1973 FDC proof set for sale ~ slightly toned

I own the one UNtoned 1973 set!!

[VickySilver]

And Spinks is gospel?

Not!

LOL on the '73 set - you may have to pay someone to take it...

[Nick]

It is, perhaps, interesting that Google translates 'fleur de coin' into the English word 'uncirculated'.

[Nick]

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?

First, I think to qualify FDC with A or N is a complete nonsense - AFDC is merely UNC (or a slightly flawed PROOF) and should be described as such. In the modern era, FDC normally applies only to proofs, as currency coins will ALWAYS have imperfections, unless it's those BU specimens sold by the Mint.

FDC should describe a coin with no flaws. No defects, knocks, bag marks, scratches, weak strike, marks, wear, rubs, cleaning, etc. However, do be aware that FDC has never applied to toning; but if a dealer described a badly toned coin as FDC I would consider it a bit cheeky!

1973 FDC proof set for sale ~ slightly toned

I own the one UNtoned 1973 set!!

Make that two. I own an untoned set too. At least, it was last time I looked.

[Peckris]

And Spinks is gospel?

Not!

It is, perhaps, interesting that Google translates 'fleur de coin' into the English word 'uncirculated'.

And Google is gospel?

Not!

[Nick]

And Spinks is gospel?

Not!

It is, perhaps, interesting that Google translates 'fleur de coin' into the English word 'uncirculated'.

And Google is gospel?

Not!

I only said perhaps interesting. Personally, I only use FDC for proof coins, but I do also use the term aFDC for 'a few contact marks otherwise FDC' or some such description.

[1949threepence]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word ‘Proof’ and list any shortcomings in the text.

[Peckris]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word ‘Proof’ and list any shortcomings in the text.

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.

[VickySilver]

Supposedly original 1889 French definition: "bloom of the die"

[Sword]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word ‘Proof’ and list any shortcomings in the text.

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.

[1949threepence]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word 'Proof' and list any shortcomings in the text.

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.

Edited December 15, 2012 by 1949threepence

[Sword]

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.

[Sword]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word 'Proof' and list any shortcomings in the text.

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?)

[1949threepence]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word 'Proof' and list any shortcomings in the text.

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 ?

[Sword]

Derek Allen (Red Riley on this forum), and the author of an excellent book, "The Standard Guide to Grading British Coins" defines FDC on his website as follows:-

Fleur de Coin (FDC); this is the term usually employed to describe proof coins which are technically perfect and is perhaps the most abused of all the coin grades. In my view coins which have toned, however slightly, or have any marks whatsoever should not be described as FDC. For this reason, I describe the vast bulk of proof coins simply with the word 'Proof' and list any shortcomings in the text.

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.