Gothic Crown Anyone?

[Paulus 1,975]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

[Rob 3,152]

I always take choice to mean that it has very good eye appeal. Choice for grade would probably be more accurate as it can apply to any grade.

[Peckris 579]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

[Sword 1,473]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production.

FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production.

So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production.

However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins.

London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC

It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.

[Peckris 579]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production.

FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production.

So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production.

However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins.

London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC

It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.

You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies.

In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Peckris

[Sword 1,473]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production.

FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production.

So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production.

However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins.

London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC

It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.

You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies.

In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin.

I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80.

The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least.

[Peckris 579]

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around!

In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing.

I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production.

FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production.

So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production.

However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins.

London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC

It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.

You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies.

In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin.

I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80.

The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least.

That's confusing - I would therefore assume that a proof will always sit higher on the scale by virtue of being a better coin to begin with. So an FDC proof I would assume to be rated higher on the scale than a flawless UNC ("Choice" or "Gem" if you're a seller!), as in theory it will show more detail under magnification, have a better edge and rim, have been struck on a special blank using special dies, etc etc.

I think where it gets even more complicated is where currency coins have been struck from left-over proof dies : they will exhibit superb strike detail but usually lack the mirrored fields and perfect rims as they have been struck on ordinary blanks. Also you get the 'first strike' examples from ordinary dies, which should rate much higher than UNCs from dies exhibiting weakness or wear.

If London Coins are using "Choice" for less than flawless UNCs, then bang goes their strict grading, and bang goes their reputation.