I have never ever seen an offer anywhere for a 150 Balboas PROOF FDC coin? Even the sealed issue from the government of the Republic of Panama (in the blue blister) is "only" PROOF. Where are the FDC ones? Where does this info even come from as a source that such coins exist?
Where does this info even come from as a source that such coins exist?
Like rsirian1 showed in his picture (posted 21 April 2026, 18:47), the source is Krause. Whether that's correct or not is something else. It makes no sense to me at all. Like Idolenz said, FDC is a grade and proof is a finish. So extra year lines for those (P) FDC, I have no idea why.
And all these (P) FDC coins in Krause are about coins struck at the Franklin Mint. And Franklin Mint struck proof coins and proof sets for so many countries but the (P) FDC coins are only mentioned for Panama (36 coins!). The only other FDC year line in the whole Krause is this one:
But that one makes sense, because that's not a proof coin and the other year line is a proof coin, so two year lines is justified.
What happened in the Panama section, I have no idea. A bad Monday morning?
Yes you're right. I don't believe there are any proof FDC coins of this type. I have never encountered one in 40 years of collecting and there is not one offer anywhere in the world for a proof FDC coin and Aucnet has no records of one ever being sold.
I do not know why Numista blindly follows those entries at all.
Maybe we're just interpreting FDC wrong. Maybe FDC in SCWC doesn't stand for Fleur de coin at all. SCWC's STANDARD INTERNATIONAL GRADING TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS table only mentions FDC as a grade for uncirculated coins. Maybe it really stands for First Day Covers such as SCWC uses here:
and here for British Virgin Islands coins all minted by Franklin Mint:
and here:
And here is a First Day Cover for this coin: N#158715
FDC for First Day Cover in stead of Fleur de Coin. That makes a lot more sense now. Never thought about that. Especially since your three examples are the only ones in the whole Krause (not using the abbreviation I mean).
The Franklin Mint's proofs are of such high quality to begin with that I don't know how they could've made an ‘FDC’ proof coin, as well. First Day Cover makes a lot of sense.
Yes that makes total sense BUT I still have never ever encountered a Panama coin advertised or being sold as a First Day Cover issue. Especially not this 150 Balboas platinum coin. I really don't think it exists.
Yes that makes total sense BUT I still have never ever encountered a Panama coin advertised or being sold as a First Day Cover issue. Especially not this 150 Balboas platinum coin. I really don't think it exists.
Maybe we're just interpreting FDC wrong. Maybe FDC in SCWC doesn't stand for Fleur de coin at all. SCWC's STANDARD INTERNATIONAL GRADING TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS table only mentions FDC as a grade for uncirculated coins. Maybe it really stands for First Day Covers such as SCWC uses here:
and here for British Virgin Islands coins all minted by Franklin Mint:
and here:
And here is a First Day Cover for this coin: N#158715
There are 36 Panamanian coins in SCWC with an FDC year line and only 22 of those are in Numista that way as I listed above.
Also, there are 221 coins, token and medals in Numista with FDC in them. Some are similar year lines like N#215865, some are not, like N#484679 where FDC is in comment section, and some just have FDC in them for no particular reason like N#466516. Since FDC is not an “approved” abbreviation for First Day Cover or Fleur de Coin all 221 objects should be revised.
Yes that makes total sense BUT I still have never ever encountered a Panama coin advertised or being sold as a First Day Cover issue. Especially not this 150 Balboas platinum coin. I really don't think it exists.
So what? It's still only a PROOF issue. Stating that it was minted on first day of minting for collectors does not necessarily mean it's a FDC coin was we have already established. There are gazillions of bullion coins out there issued on the first day of minting and most of them do not have any FDC appendage attached to them. It's just marketing bollocks.
Yes that makes total sense BUT I still have never ever encountered a Panama coin advertised or being sold as a First Day Cover issue. Especially not this 150 Balboas platinum coin. I really don't think it exists.
So what? It's still only a PROOF issue. Stating that it was minted on first day of minting for collectors does not necessarily mean it's a FDC coin was we have already established. There are gazillions of bullion coins out there issued on the first day of minting and most of them do not have any FDC appendage attached to them. It's just marketing bollocks.
You said that you didn't see that coin being sold in a “first day cover” packaging. I showed you an example. Whether it should be a separate yearline or not is a different issue.
Personally, I think it should have a separate yearline, because it is better than creating a whole new page for a “set” that contains just one coin.
Most in this thread are against listing it at all because it does not really make sense to keep it listed at all. FDC is just marketing, nothing else.
You may not care about packaging, but for collectors who care about it, it is a very important distinction. There are two ways to solve it: 1) have a yearline, or 2) create an entire new page for this “set”. Or rather blister. Obviously, having a yearline is more practical.
For example for me packaging is important, and if I collected Panama coins I would have definitely needed either that yearline or a set.
Same logic should not apply though for sets that have multiple coins, because as I see it, a set should have at least two coins.
But that is a debate regarding set guidelines, that have not been established properly yet. If in final version the 1-coin sets will be allowed, then this yearline shouldn't exist. (Much less practical solution than now)
Panama • 150 Balboas (Panamá Congress)
