A Roman Rampage

The last coin is interesting because, at least to my eyes, it represents a sort of mint error. I don't believe the ragged flan is damage. One comes across this sort of tearing at the edges when a flan has not been properly annealed. The strike then causes uneven metal flow and characteristic cracks at the edges. I like it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's not a bad Caracalla for $33. I have it attributed as:

Caracalla Denarius, RIC 11, 198 AD, M AVR ANTON CAES PONTIF, draped & cuirassed bust right / MARTI VLTORI, Mars advancing right, holding spear & trophy.

So Caracalla was about 10 years old when this coin was struck.

 

OK, I finally landed my first silver denarius for under $10, but it seems to be relatively uncleaned. It is an Elagabalus. What techniques are recommended to get the dirt or grime off and make it prettier? I have read that mild dishwasher detergent and water are fine. I have also heard that some collectors use olive oil. Any suggestions would be great. Maybe I'll post before and after pics based on my experiment.

 

Show us some pics. You may want to leave it as is.

 

Here it is.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-ancien...agabalus-218-222-AD-star-spear-/131091042738?

Perhaps it would be better to keep it as it is. I am new at this category and am aware that there are different rules. On a side note, I just expanded my search to ancient Indian and Islamic silver coins and there are bargains to be had out there. Since I am out of bullets right now, I will have to wait for my next paycheck to grab some really nice pieces.

 

From the pics, I'm not sure if that is not a silver wash rather than solid silver. However, to be honest, I'm not certain that Sev Alexander used silver wash or just debased silver.

 

Soak it in distilled water for starters - that might loosen some of the dirt. Give it a light brushing. It looks like that coin could clean up a bit.

 

According to the academic website I linked to earlier, both Severus Alexander and Elagabalus used debased silver, with their denarii averaging 40-50% silver purity. It looks to me like the last coin has some dirt on it, though there's no guarantee on the purity of any individual coin, in my view. But hey, it only cost 9 bucks.

 

Silver fineness varied widely throughout Roman history. The cycle of inflation, debasement, and reform repeated itself many times over. As Chris mention earlier, fineness is only a consideration to collectors of ancients on account of its numismatic and historical interest. Bullion value plays no part in this neck of the woods.

I submit two coins for your consideration: a silver antoninianus of Gordian III of high fineness, and a thoroughly debased antoninianus of Aurelian. Is the first coin better than the second because of its silver content? Its a matter of personal aesthetics, but most collectors of ancients would say no. They simply represent different moments in the aforementioned cycle.

 

Yeah, I know, I do not dispute your points. As a collector, let me say that I am eccentric. I get into the heads of typical Romans of the period and I see that for purposes of commerce they preferred coins of higher silver purity. This is not to deny the aesthetic or numismatic appeal of the Aurelian antoninianus.

 

The common man wanted silver coins of high fineness, but the most notorious of the debasers, like Nero and Caracalla, wanted no such thing. The most important thing to any government, regardless of its politics, is the acquisition of revenue. Nero watered down the denarii so that the state had more silver to spend. Caracalla invented the antoninianus, which was supposed to circulate at the value of two denarii even though it contained only 1 1/2 times the silver.

As the common man, what is your recourse? The only thing you can do is what all populations have done when it comes to debased issues: accept it as token coinage. Commerce must continue. The dollar isn't silver any more. Oh well, it's still called a dollar and I still need to buy stuff...

 

I would think you have overpaid on all the coins pictures so far and the Elagabalus seems like a bit of a waste of your money. Its not worth $9 IMO. If investment is your thing, I would suggest saving your money and waiting until you have enough to buy a coin which will hold value and hopefully increase.
I know its tempting to get coins fast, but patience will pay off. look for auctions that end at silly times of the day or night....not everyone uses esnipe.!
try vcoins, david Connors has some beauties for very little money!! Little gem his store!

 

ps. The Elagabalus, will not clean. Its down past the surface layer already and cleaning any more dirt off will also rub away the grainy alloy.

 

When I first took the plunge into ancients, I was so exhilarated with owning these bona fide artifacts of bygone eras that I did a similar thing: bought up a bunch of cheap coins in lower grades just to have them. It seems to be something you just need to get out of your system before you become more discriminating.

On the other hand though, some collectors have very limited budgets, and get as much satisfaction out of low-grade coins as anyone buying higher-end pieces.

 

I think there are still bargains to be had, even with limited budgets. Sure, you will not buy the beauties that Ancient Joe, Steve and Martin seem to afford, but still some nice coins for under $50. The two I bought last night cost me $28.50 and $19.07 respectively. Neither will win a beauty contest, but they are not bad coins. The whole idea is to be patient. I'm on a strict budget these days (that of my wife's making, not necessity), but I can still find coins within that budget that satisfy my collecting tastes.

 

Jumping on the bandwagon: Another reason to buy slightly nicer coins is that it is easier to know what you have. The reverse here looks like MARTI PACIFERO a reverse used by Severus Alexander but not Elagabalus. My example is a little easier to see.


Mine is not high grade but cost $21. I bought it in the belief that, then, I needed an Antioch mint example. I'm not now 100% sure I have a handle on the style differences here but I believe yours is Rome mint.

Coins have a surface. Removal of dirt above the surface is called cleaning and can be a good thing with ancients. When the surface is reached and removed by corrosion or cleaning, no amount of cleaning will improve the situation. Your coin is in this last category except doe a little brown dirt which might wash off but won't make what is below look better. I would leave it alone.

 

I agree 100%. I have always overpaid somewhat at first before becoming really knowledgeable and getting bargains. I am not going to read or spend many hours skimming tomes before jumping into buying coins. I will buy coins and, from the minor mistakes I make (I don't think buying a 9 dollar Roman coin qualities as a serious infraction), improve upon that to attain a better collection for my money.

It was the same way when I bought silver dollars and Fat Men. I overpaid at first and refined my buying over time. I do not regret paying 9 bucks for that Elagabalus.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I will look up that dealer when I have more ammo and may post my improved buys.

 

Certainly no infraction at $9, you are right. Hope it didnt come across as a serious criticism or too harshly? Just offering my honest opinion.......we all live and learn. Definitely check out David Connors site, there are some lovely coins there and occasionally he sells some nice group lots too. If you are into coin cleaning, he sells nice coins which need a bit of 'tarting up' as well.

 

No, your view agrees with that of other experienced collectors here. The consensus seems to be that for a little more money the quality can really shoot up and I can get more bang for my buck. I just find it surreal that these ancient coins are so affordable. 9 bucks can be blown on fast food by the average person fairly quickly.

I look forward to refining my buying over time and contributing more to these discussions.