1949threepence

Sorry, tell a lie. It is MS67 after all ~ was looking at the wrong bit. The right one is here Extraordinary.

Anyway, I've found it on Heritage's website ~ here ........and it's MS64, not MS67. Still overgraded I reckon.

They also take into account "eye appeal", which makes Nick's sixpence an epic fail for MS67 Lmfao..........Eye appeal to earn a point or 4 woohoooooooo, no wonder the americans use petrol to enhance their coins then It's actually no more than a not very good looking NEF. That's the reality. If it's really been graded MS67, then something is not quite right IMO.

They also take into account "eye appeal", which makes Nick's sixpence an epic fail for MS67

Some quite good detail, but looks heavily pitted. Somewhere between £175 and £250, maybe ~ depending on the mood of bidders at the time. If you do a BIN, I'd go for £200. Whatever you do, don't set a high starting price to an auction, or you'll have difficulty shifting it.

Also, according to the criteria noted in this link an MS68 coin, just one grade higher than the one in this example, is one in 100,000 !!!

My guess was MS62 and given that Heritage have an auction estimate of $1250-$1750, it is well off my radar too. That's crazy, is there not significant wear to the hair or is that me? It looks as though there is, although as I said earlier, it's often difficult to tell from a pic. Certainly a rather mottled and unattractive looking coin. Not sure it reaches MS67 by these criteria There were major distractions in the form of mottling, and the fields looked far from flawless.

Assuming the obverse is in the same condition, then possibly AU55. But difficult to tell from the pic.

Well whatever the underlying reasons for its existence, I actually posted it purely for the technical write up on dipping, which for me, was the only relevant issue.

Have a look at the 1889 penny in this link It's advertised for sale by The Flyer 66, who I know to be a reliable seller, who I have bought off several times, and been very pleased with the items. He thinks it is a possible proof, and indeed, it does look a bit like one, albeit, possibly impaired. Thoughts as to whether proof or not ? At thie time of posting this thread, the auction end is imminent, and the current bid £155.00

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

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 ?

That'll be a "don't know" then

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.

Totally incomprehensible to the vast majority of people, that any individual could commit an act of such pure evil. But then you have to reckon that he was psychotic. I suppose we shouldn't be shocked, as history is full of evil acts, such as the collective evil psychosis which manifested as Nazi Germany, and led to the holocaust. Not to mention Pol Pot. Even so, it still numbs and shocks. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families affected. I can't even begin to imagine what they are going through.

Bob C, known on here as "RLC35". "Bob C" is underneath all his posts. Debbie must have mistaken the 'R' in RLC, for Richard as opposed to Robert.

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:-

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

To me, that's no more obvious (or desirable) than the 1893 farthing "narrow date". It isn't in the same category of date width difference as the 1875 - 1879 varieties, IMO - and those have other differences also, making them different die designs. That's true. The differences are only very subtle and not obvious at first glance, whereas 1874 to 1879, absolutely hit you in the eye.

Thanks for that, Scott. The 1893 I bought from the Edinburgh collection, has a '3' which looks pretty much identical to that narrow date one you showed. Almost as though it's leaning slightly to the right, but it definitely isn't a narrow date, sadly. I note that the 1893 narrow date in the Crocker Collection is soon to be listed by Gouby as a separate variety.

Happy Birthday Bob

I don't know about wider and narrower date widths for the 1893, Scott. Although they may exist. As you say, there is definitely a subtle width disparity in1892 pennies, as confirmed by Gouby. Normal width 9½ teeth from 1 to the tail of 9, and 8½ teeth from 1 to tail of 9. Obviously nothing like as obvious as those that existed in 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 & 1879, but there, nonetheless. I know there were various font 3's used in the minting of 1893 pennies, as well as the 1893/2 example. You might want to consider buying the aforesaid Gouby's, "The British Bronze Penny 1860 to 1901†Victoria specialised edition" first publised in December 2009. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering buying it myself, even though it is quite expensive. Hopefully somebody else on here will have heard of the wide/narrow date 1893's you refer to.

The time of your above post isn't lost on me, Peck

I prefer to see it that way. Although, I'll run with any method as long as it produces an interesting date. Besides which it's more unusual to get date "anomalies" (for want of a better word), which involves the entire year, rather than just the last two digits of it. 12.12.12 is unique, and doesn't work with 2012 But yes, yours is another palindrome.

Very true