new to ancients - NGC certification

Well, there's the famous quote that there are no stupid questions: stupid people don't ask questions! The top end of the ancients grading scale is EF. It's impossible for us to consider a coin that's hundreds or thousands of years old, and that has been cleaned, as uncirculated or AU. Those grades just don't fit the reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Our grading scale, which predates US grading by centuries, is Fair-XF, wit an exquisite example as struck and fine style being FDC. We use "a" meaning about, or low end, or "g" for good or high end. So a coin can between gF or aVF. David Vagi made up all of the other stuff on NGC slabs. I have never seen another dealer use them. What ticks me off about these slabs, besides not being able to touch the coins, is they do not use our grading system, use other stuff they simply made up, and then do not even guarantee authenticity. Simply buying the coin from a good ancient coin dealer will give you a lifetime authenticity guarantee, so what is the point of using slabs with wrong grading system and not even get a guarantee? Why don't I start up a slab company grading a US coin "Okey Dokey MS108" but not guarantee its authentic. Would that service be welcome by US collectors?

 

Is this grading scale described anywhere?

It seems like a lot of ancient collectors care a lot less about the grade. Coming from the US side of things, this seems weird to me, but I guess its just a different way of thinking about things.

 

You can read a bit about their grading scale here http://www.ngccoin.com/specialty-services/ancient-coins/grading.aspx#scaleNetGrading

As far as ancient collectors go: we care about the grade, but in a different way than US collectors. You can't really think about grading the same for ancients as you can with moderns and the 70-point scale because struck coins created with dies of varying style and quality on flans of varying quality have a lot more variables than you have to think about with modern coins and on top of that, there are many coins that are often found off-center or on small flans, so part of evaluating a purchase is deciding which devices you want on-flan and which you are OK with being missing.

Doug has a great page that discusses some of the complications of grading ancients here http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/impossible.html . Really his whole site is excellent but IMHO this is required reading for those who are recent converts to "the dark side".

 

Red_spork and medorman have said it well. I would add that in the realm of moderns, grade seems to be a priority, whereas in ancients, we are generally much more interested in numismatics and history. We can go thread after thread after thread discussing coins and their cultural context, and never mention grade even once.

 

More on grading:

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Pricing and Grading Roman Coins

 

There are many factors needed to grade an ancient coin: wear (grade), strike, centering, style, etc. The description I like best is on the following link:
http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/grading/grading.htm
I talk about the subject on my blog and went through my thought process for picking two coins.
http://rrdenarius.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-thoughts-on-coin-selection-pinarius.html
I try to keep track of my ancient coins on a spreadsheet. What makes a coin acceptable, or better, is subject to individual taste. I think most bankers marks do not distract from a coin's appeal. I list the parts of grading as shown below:
Grade, mine - VF
Grade, dealer - VF
Centering - both off center
Strike - coin is not fully struck and off center
Flan flaws - irregular flan (not round)
Style - good
Patination - light toning
Damage - several bankers marks on obverse

 

I would not go so far as to say that ancient collectors don't care about grade but the degree of wear grade (G - EF etc.) is far from the most important feature in deciding whether a coin is desirable or not. It is really that way with US coins as well but they are common enough that the grading companies just refuse to grade coins that have any of several characteristics that ALL ancient coins have (centering, cleaning, corrosion) to some degree as a result of spending a thousand years buried in the ground. US collectors who go for metal detector find large cents have a lot more in common with our grades than they do with collectors of Lincoln pennies. All ancient grades are assumed to be 'details' grades and the important things are all in the other details - the ones that can make an unworn coin look like garbage and the ones that make a coin so pretty that we can overlook it has some wear.

 

One of the most difficult issues in grappling with the condition and grading of ancients is the somewhat nebulous definition of "style." This is NOT a term you'll generally see on NGC's slabs, yet it may be the most important factor in an ancient coin's overall appeal and price.

To illustrate, consider the two Galba sestertii below:




This coin's obverse is graded EF, and the reverse is even better -- good EF. While there are some surface imperfections, the level of detail in this coin is simply extraordinary, and there is no apparent tooling. There is a slight double-strike on the obverse but this doesn't detract from the overall grade. Yet compare this with the following coin:



This coin's grade is slightly lower than the first one, and it too suffers from a slight double-strike (on the reverse). Yet the quality of the obverse portrait is far superior to the first coin, and as a result it's a much more appealing (and valuable) coin.

Evaluating a coin's "style" is a bit of an art, and learned only gradually with experience in collecting ancients.

 

I would say a few things are happening with these two coins IoM, and I would like to talk about them for further illumination to new collectors.

What you said is true, but I would highlight a few things. One, yes, the obverse matters more than the reverse to most collectors. Most collectors I would say, (at least more then 50), are obverse oriented. Many do not even really pay attention to reverses at all. This is especially true of early Roman, 12 Caesars, time. So the second coin having a superior style portrait is very important. Secondly, the second coin has an intact green patina. This by itself makes it a much more valuable coin than the first, a coin that has been stripped of its patina. An attractive green, red, or black, patina can add a lot of value to bronze coins, especially sestertii.

So yes, style is important, especially on portraits and especially on 12 Caesar portraits, (sine they have a lot of collectors who are only concentrating on a portrait set). However, to me, if I could ignore value I would choose coin 1 in a heartbeat even though I love green patinas. I simply believe the reverse is terrifically more interesting, and that is MY main focus of collecting, what appeals to me and I find interesting. So, thankfully, all of us have different perspectives and desires. This helps us divvy up available coins based upon personal interests. Maybe a different way to say this is I find the style and subject matter on the reverse of coin 1 much finer than the reverse of coin 2, and since I am not a 12 Caesars collector, the finer style of the portrait is not terribly important to me.

 

In terms of grading ancient coins, "style" is a bit different from grade (VF, EF, etc.), but is typically a criteria that applies to the devices (both obverse and reverse) of a coin. This is not a criteria that's used for modern coins, but it's one that a collector of ancients needs to recognize, as well as develop expertise in evaluating style.

Content (i.e., the images and scenes depicted on a coin's obverse and reverse) isn't part of a coin's grade but of course can greatly affect a coin's desirability and value, sometimes to the extent that it becomes more important than the grading criteria. E.g., an Ides of March denarius is highly desirable and valuable in almost any condition, so style and grade is much less meaningful for such coins.

My post above was aimed at elucidating the issues of grading and condition -- content is an entirely separate topic for discussion. That's what makes ancient coins so interesting and different from modern coins.

 

I understand sir, but I would still consider your coin 1 to be higher reverse style than coin 2, and just the reverse for the obverse. Since coins of this period especially are desired for their portraiture obverse style will have a more direct effect than other series. That and the patina I simply thought I would comment on since both have pretty dramatic effects on pricing difference of the two coins. Maybe I should have just left the content comment out.

As others can see, "value" is a very complex thing with ancients, and not simply a Type and "grade" discussion.

 

No need to use the formal "sir" -- you can go ahead with "Hey, jerk, here's what I'm saying... ;-)

I agree that the top coin above has a huge stylistic difference between the obverse and reverse. The reverse appears to have been done by a master engraver while the obverse portrait is hardly even journeyman level. That makes this coin a bargain for a collector interested in reverses more than portraits.

The bottom coin exhibits a similar high level of "style" on both the obverse and reverse, although the reverse figure is a little marred by the double-strike.

I'm in no way detracting from the level of artistry on the top coin's reverse (which is why I cited the obverse portrait's style on both coins) -- it's one of the best I've ever seen on a sestertius of Galba.

 

NGC said my Antiochus VII is AU but I don't believe them...

 

LOL, well, looks like NGC did not return your AU (Gold) coin to you! You only got AR!!! Sorry, had to snipe ya, Nate!

 

It's alright bro, I had it coming. Clever.

 

Naaawww... I am just a Shiftless Ne'er-Do-Well !

 

Look at @Ancientnoob making this a "Guess the Grade"

 

This is a perfect example of why collectors of ancients don't use the grade AU. If you zoom in on that coin, you'll see a thin layer of dirt here and there, and a few minor nicks, and some hairline cleaning scratches. If this was a modern coin, it would get a details grade. And yet, it's a highly desirable and beautiful example of the type.

 

Yip it's the best of both worlds