The March of Romans

I don't think you need to worry. It's a really nice coin and the little green crusties don't detract from the eye appeal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I noticed that TIF has been cleaning Alexandrian Tets in her gold tremissis post. She might be able to shed a bit more light on the green spots

 

I agree - light deposits never bother me, as long as they're not BD. Many times they add to the eye appeal of the coin in my estimation.

Here are better shots of the Geta and S. Alexander. Some of you might not like the back-lighting on the obverse of the Alexander, but the right side of the coin is weakly struck, and I can't seem to light it from that side without washing out all the facial detail.

 

I'm following the same advice you gave John. Apparently soaking in DI water and then drying in an oven is critical. I'm using VerdiCare as the final treatment.

Last year I was trying to save a BD-ridden prutah. I sharply debrided the green stuff, cleaned with acetone, and let it dry before applying Ren Wax. Or maybe VerdiCare, don't recall.

The corrosion accelerated greatly! Within days the green powder was covering almost the whole coin. Must've been residual moisture in the coin. Bad.

Edited to add: I agree that the small dark green spots on John's coin look hard-- probably nothing to worry about if properly stored.

 

Another new image of a Julian II I posted in another thread. This coin has been surprisingly troublesome to image. Here again, the facial features are weak, in addition to the area around the neck and shoulders. The high points pick up the light and leave the low points in darkness. I think this is finally a decent compromise...



It would seem that coins in lower grades are trickier to image - you want to make them look sharper than they are.

 

Here's yet another image of the Trajan. I didn't like the effect incandescent lights had on the coin - gave it a strange color. This one is closer to the true color, but I'm still not satisfied with the angles. I'm done with this coin for today, though - enough is enough.

 

Remember when I said I probably wouldn't buy any more Romans this month, and that that was also probably a lie? Well, I sniped this Gordian III ant last night for $21.50, which is exactly what I like to pay for a Gordian ant. Seller's color-corrected image...

 

dang JA, you're on a row. your new pics are fantastic, the trajan looks much prettier and the snake on the reverse looks super fine in the new pics. interesting bust on that trajan...does he look a little different that usual?

congrats on some fine NPs!

 

I've been looking at quite a few coins of Trajan lately, and there seems to be more variance in the busts than other emperors, even among imperial coins. You'd expect a certain amount of variation in the provincials, but it seems the imperials would be more homogenous. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

Three more arrivals today. Here's Gallienus...

Gallienus, 253-266
AR Antoninianus, 20mm, 3.28g; Rome mint: 263-264
Obv.: GALLIENVS AVG; radiate bust right, seen from behind.
Rev.: VIRTVS AVG; Virtus standing left, holding spear and shield.
Reference: RIC 5(a) 325

 

Here's a pleasing FH. The white deposit on the obverse appears to be calcium, and I think it'll come loose with a bit of a distilled water soak. The dealer attributes this coin to Siscia, so I left it that way, but I see SIR. I see two serifs at the top of the second letter that the dealer considers an S, which would be consistent with a Roman R.

Constantius II, 317-361 AD
AE Half Centenionalis, 18mm, 2.5g: Siscia mint: 351-355
Obv.: Diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: Soldier standing left, spearing falling horseman // BSISS
Reference: RIC VII 352

 

JA, you sure been on a roll, great bunch of coins....very nice...

 

are you still getting stuff? dang...alright...i'm getting a coin.

 

I think my favorite coin of the trio that arrived yesterday is this Valentinian, simply because it's not easy to find well-struck, well-preserved examples of this emperor's bronzes for cheap. This is pretty good for a $9 coin.

I'm not certain about the dealer's description of this mint mark either. I have some research to do later, when I can.

Valentinian I, 364-375
AE18, 2.08g; Siscia mint: 364-367
Obv.: DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG; pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev.: GLORIA RO-MANORVM; emperor advancing right, head left, dragging captive and holding labarum with chi-rho // dot BSISC
Reference: RIC IX 5a

 

JA: Your making me want to go hunting again. Coin hunting that is. I like all your NPs, but the Valentinian I is most interesting.

 

Well, the last of my chickens came home to roost today, the ant of Gordian III, so here's a team picture. Not a bad haul if I do say so myself. Now I'm gearing up for the April Romans.

 

Nice haul, I like the gordian & trajan bronzes especially.

 

This is an unfortunate truth. Would you expect it to be otherwise? We should consider that one reason photographers pay models a lot of money is that it is easier to make a beautiful image when you start with a beautiful subject. Perhaps we should try to capture the character of truth rather than making every coin look better than it is. Unfortunately, too many coins today are being butchered in cleaning and left with muted details and polished surfaces. Nothing bothers me more than to get a pretty coin in hand that I can't photograph. I can deal with the results of a poor coin but if I pay Hollywood Handsome prices for a coin I expect to be made to look like a good photographer.

 

In that category, the coins that give me the most trouble are the ones with a glossy-black patina, which is probably the effect of waxing. I just can't seem to light them properly.

The best I can do is adjust the luminosity and saturation to bring out the details, which completely distorts the color. This coin is actually ebony black in hand.

 

Huh => well, that's some very sweet photography, my coin-friend (congrats)

Great effort, JA (have a great weekend)