Found my first Fleur de Coin

The term is mute on style and nearly all other grading standards.

In fact, Fleur de coin (Flower of the Mint) is not actually considered an accurate grade. This term is more like a subjective salesmen superlative similar to, "Fantastic Coin" suggesting no further review is required. See what Forum Ancient Coins says about this term.

Since the original post asked the question and judging only by the photo, one might note the obverse is slightly off center, very slight wear in high points, cheek ding, flan cracks and pelleted border 30% missing. The dull reverse is not sharply detailed and lacks crispness suggesting die wear, plus portions of missing border ring make it also slightly off center.

There are also heavier anonymous victoriatus coins than this one.

My grade is a good extremely fine specimen, but could go higher if viewed in hand.

Can a 2,000 year old object ever remain in perfect mint state?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oh I'm not interested in this coin at all otherwise yea, I'd never post it publicly lol. Just first time seeing FDC and am happy to see it spark such debate.

 

Excellent observation Bryzantium Babe!

 

I'm new to collecting and am not familiar with the past history of many of the houses. Roma seems like they carry high quality, expensive, premium coins compared to most others. I'm looking at one coin that was acquired from CNG, which in my opinion is a very honest, fair auction house located in central Pennsylvania/London. Is Lanz Numismatik known for tooling their coins?

 

but others are quite possibly interested in it and posting a link to it and talking about it generates buzz and is likely to drive the price up.

 

Noted.

 

CNG is top notch. But that doesn't mean that once a nefarious firm purchases from them that they don't "spruce" up the item.
Yes Lanz is famous for smoothing tooling and outright altering coins to look like other more desirable types. There is a small thread on front page now that will tell you a bit of the story. For more simply type Lanz in the top right search bar and read up. But here is the thread about fakes they are selling right now: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fake-or-real.376050/
...and Roma is in bed with these crooks.

 

Right. It's an understandable mistake especially when the subject is as interesting and controversial as this one but usually its best to wait for the hammer to fall.

 

I've had only one FDC coin, a Phillip the Arab antoninianus with FORTVNA REDVX on the reverse. Since I acquired it from Frank L. Kovacs, he was a reputable dealer who did not tend to inflate grades. Back in the 1980's as well.

 

If this coin is FDC then we need a term for coins that really are unimprovable. IMO, if you look at a coin and can say, "Oh, I wish it did not have that.......(fill in the blank - this coin has several options)" the coin is not FDC. Those my age or similar may remember the TV show 'Happy Days'. A running joke was the character Fonzie looking in a mirror and holding a comb in his hand but not touching his hair. It was already perfect. I propose, if we must accept poor style and flan cracks on a FDC coin, that we should now call what I previously considered FDC to be a 'Fonzie'. If you can't imagine an improvement and if you stick your comb in your pocket without use, let the label read 'FONZ'. I would be interested in a report on the realization of this coin. It will prove nothing other than whether there are two or more rich people who do not care about the style/cracks etc. but it still will be interesting.

 

Unless I am mistaken, the French word "coin" in numismatic contexts means "die" not "mint", so the literal translation is "flower of the die".

 

Can you please clarify why this is "an understandable mistake" to ask a question?

One function of this forum appears to be educating the next generation of ancient coin collectors and helping with their questions. With due respect, it makes no sense to suggest questions should only be asked after a potential costly mistake is made. When a for-profit business publicly places a product for sale, makes a French comment, questions should be raised and asked prior to the purchase. In my humble opinion, this should be encouraged, not censured. A very large percentage of consumers read online reviews before buying a product. Why not an auction product? Like it or not, in the complex, cavalier and confusing world of ancient coin grading and ever growing business of online auctions worldwide, novice and advanced collectors want reassurance before committing to a purchase or placing a bid.

 

That is incredibly concerning if coins are sold without being tagged as tooled or smoothed. Has anyone had experience buying a coin from these houses that was at time of acquisition unknown to have either of these issues, later discover it, and gone for a refund? I would hope the houses would refund in full for not disclosing such issues ahead of time.

 

There is no absolute here, but in my understanding of the admittedly unwritten etiquette, it has been a tradition to avoid praise or commentary in a public forum of an auction lot that is to be sold in the future unless it has been misleadingly described. I doubt if anyone was misled by the description of this coin.

Commentary in a public forum like this is different than in private conversations or email messages and it enhances the hype which may impact the vying for a specific lot. As a potential bidder, this may impact my chances to win this lot.

It's understandable because in the early days of internet forums like this, I did the same thing (a lot) and was gently informed by others that it would be best to wait until after the sale to comment.

 

You make a good point. Old rules can evolve with the times. I'm interested if others agree that this is a valid analogy.

 

Count me among those who believe that the original post is in somewhat of a gray area. Especially note that, if the OP had not included his second paragraph (regarding pricing), the posting of an un-auctioned coin on which he wasn't bidding, simply out of curiosity about its FDC designation, likely would have had little effect on raising this coin's profile and/or affecting its price.

On the other hand, there are plenty of previously auctioned coins that have been designated FDC by Roma, and a better solution would have been to post one of these and ask if CoinTalkers considered it FDC.

On the topic of FDC: I've posted many times previously that auction houses' estimate of condition are mostly a curiosity, especially in the Internet age where high-quality pictures are almost always available. My own personal definition of the term "FDC" is a coin that has been perfectly struck (centered both side, crisp detail, no unevenness, etc.) and uncirculated (no detectable wear whatsoever). Clearly by my definition, the OP coin doesn't even come close.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority in this, but I tend to think that including "finest style" in the definition of FDC adds more ambiguity than clarity. It may just be my egalitarian nature, but I like to imagine that every young die can hope to strike an FDC coin before it's superannuated.

Phil Davis

 

Yes. And no the didn't issue refund. They avoided issuing it. This is why I don't buy from either.
Look up Lanz in the thread history and you will have more examples than you want to read.

 

Isn't this around the time when Lanz's faithful champion and defender usually shows up?

 

What relationship does Lanz have with Roma? I'm aware of Lanz's reputation from CT postings and looking at their listings on Ebay and elsewhere. I have never had an adverse opinion of Roma. Their descriptions are not at the disclosure level that CNG reaches, and they sometimes make some attribution mistakes, but I've never seen anything that was obviously or intentionally way off as I see with Lanz. Further, I have just recently resolved a return with Roma that was handled amicably and swiftly by their customer service.