The New York International Coin Show

Most people dont seem to realize what FDC really means, but Andrew has it correct. Its not splitting hairs if the term is understood correctly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The difference for moderns vs ancient is that moderns are all roughly identical so there isn't any value in "grading" style or strike and everything can be distilled down to a flat number.

In ancients, a perfect mint state coin with poor style, strike, die condition, etc. could be far less valuable than a beautiful VF coin.

Here's a good, albeit somewhat laughable example. This coin was graded by NGC as "MS" - if there were a price guide for ancients, how would it be priced relative to a VF coin that wasn't horribly corroded?

 

I get that, and I see it all of the time.

 

The book I have where I learned about what FDC is says absolutely nothing about being centered. It just says no wear and perfect strike.

 

I agree with the above completely. There is nothing to suggest there is or should be a FDC coin for every type. In fact, there are many very rare or unique types where the only surviving examples are horrid. The idea of grading coins with inflated words followed by 'for these' is a ploy for dealers to charge more for ugly coins. The is no consensus on what is the best style especially on coins not from the periods known for the finest style. Those in love with Classical Greek coin style can not allow FDC for Archaic coins or, heaven forbid, Byzantine copper. Certainly there are many who collect only coins that are beautiful by their standards but it is not necessary to apply FDC to a 98% beautiful but still imperfect coin simply because you have never seen one better.

 

Centering is part of the strike. It cannot be a perfect strike unless it is very well-centered.

 

Well, at least there is a hard-set definition that experts agree on. Nothing of the sort exists in grading modern coins.

 

I agree. I believe that centering is one of the most important qualities in assessing the condition value of ancient coins. It took me a while to get this as I transitioned from modern numismatics. It is simply not a consideration for modern coins, but there is a reason why the word "complete" is part of the ancient collector's vocabulary, and not used very much. Don't get me wrong, I have off-centered coins in my collection that I love, but I think I would love them more if they were well centered on both sides.

 

I fail to understand how people won't consider a coin when a little wear removes a bit of detail making a coin 'only VF' but can accept a coin that is off center losing half the legend an consider it a candidate for 'perfect' status.

 

I find with ancients that the eye appeal of a coin depends wayyy more on the artistic quality of the die, the strike and patina/ toning than the wear. Many of my personal favourites are VF and the wear is a complete non-issue

 

@Nvb, I fully agree. In modern coins, wear is a major factor. Not so much in ancients.

 

Milled coins have many problems too. Adjustment marks are a real pain in the neck, with 1700-1840 coins, esp. French issues. Then bad dies/ Swiss Cantons had a lot of coins with weakness in center design. Then many where struck from cracked/ worn dies
Hammered coinage hit its lowest point under the Byzantines from 1200-1454 when the Ottomans put them out of their misery. After the fall of Rome to the Germans in 410AD, it would take the conquerors another 800 years to duplicate the fine art of coining. This one I have from 1254AD is well done. The 1654 coin from Basel is from Spink Auction, where it was listed as FDC, however center has weakness. All known 1654 ex (7) have same trait. Yet the 1720 Quarter Dukat I have is flawless, supberb strike.