I recently picked up these two roman republic bronze coins, and both have the same collector/ dealer envelope. I was hoping to see if anyone recognizes whose envelope they are. Additionally, they both came with NAC auction tags from 61, RBW collection, but the coins were not in the sale, at least i can't find them... does anyone have any explanation, other then a mistake, as to why these tags are with these coins. Last question, what is the attribution difference between 50/4 and 194/2, both are anchor series semis?
Correct, it's an anonymous issue. The anchor question relates to the first coin, what makes it a 50/4 instead of a 194/2.
A great many RBW coins were put into large groups, so they may be part of one of those. Would be hard to say unless you track the lot number to the description to see if they match. Also, many RBW groups were sold directly to dealers, so they dont have a major sale reference unless it is specified on RBW's tags.
I was thinking group lot as well, but I don't see any group lots in NAC 61 that they would be apart of. Assuming 'A61/852' and 'A61/228' reference Auction 61 lot 852 and Auction 61 lot 228, these two coins are not those two lots: 61/228: https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=245&category=3243&lot=156978 61/852: https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=245&category=3243&lot=157602 Which can't be the case because neither are the coins. Here is another picture showing the full NAC tags, the denomination and weight listed on these are correct for the coins they came with, and incorrect for the coins in the auction:
These were probably just coins that were submitted to NAC but for whatever reason didn't make the cut. If the 56/3 semis is indeed one of the half weight overstrikes, I'm surprised because there were no examples of the H1 semis listed(or at least not listed in that section - IIRC there is one misattributed later on as a later anon type). What I can tell you as far as the envelopes is that yours look like one that was included with one of the coins I bought that was unsold in NAC 61. A few notes about the coin(but less than RBW's original envelopes), and a note that the ANS has an example, but not much else.
The 56/3 is a half weight h1 semis style and weight wise, although i don't see evidence of an undertype. Here is a link 56/3 details: http://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=317348 The misattributed 56/3 coin in RBW is NAC61 lot 845.
At first glance, the style and weight are consistent with it being one of the half weight overstrikes(an actual 56/3 semis from the Rome mint should be in the 18-20g range). I don't see any definite traces of overstriking but this one is well struck so may have obscured the undertype completely. Really strange that it wasn't included in NAC 61 though, maybe they just weren't completely sure of the attribution? The anchor semis might've been some minor variety or something that RBW thought should be included but NAC didn't, who knows. His collection was so massive that I'm sure there were many such coins.
Considering the scope of the collection (as say BCD) there were MANY coins which should have been in a single auction lot. But, with SO many coins, there just isnt time. Many coins are still coming up which were not in either collection sales. Just check the sales and you will see comments like "further selections from"....
I know that, I've purchased many of them. What surprised me more than anything was that there was no example of the H1 semis in NAC 61 at all. Most of what is coming to market now are unsold coins from the two sales or duplicates where a better example was present, but not types that were missing outright.
I added it to my previous post, but the H1 half weight semis in RBW was NAC 61-845: https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=245&category=3243&lot=157595 So no correctly attributed 56/3 H1, but there was one there, and it looks like a much more clear overstrike.
I am thrilled that so many of his duplicates are coming on the market now. I also just picked up a 88/8 upright spearhead uncia, paid 1/10 what RBW listed on his envelope...
I'm glad that one went to a good home. I recently purchased several bronzes from that same dealer and would've purchased that one had I had the money. Prices are down considerably for these types at the moment and half or more of the ones I've purchased recently were purchased for less than the previous collector paid as well.
I'll take a stab at this. The envelopes with 21 & 147 are no doubt from whatever sale Rick originally purchased these coins from. Almost certainly that's pre-CoinArchives, so even with access to a world-class catalogue library it would be a tedious job to figure out which sale, from which firm, that was. I'm reasonably sure that the notes are in Rick's handwriting; I've seen a lot of it, but not for several years. (I didn't know there'd be a quiz!) I have none on hand to compare. Perhaps Carthago could check his catalogues purchased from Rick's library and confirm that that is Rick's handwriting. #228 in NAC 61 is indeed not the OP coin, but it IS part of the Crawford 56 series. I doubt that's a coincidence. I'm guessing the coin was scheduled for RBW I but pulled from the sale late in the process for whatever reason and replaced by the coin that did run in the sale. If that's correct, it follows that NAC just didn't bother to reprint the tag. That would be unsurprising. They do maintain an inventory in London; no reason why it couldn't contain RBW coins. Lastly, I note that the OP 56/3 was obtained from a recent CNG E Sale. Why not ask them what light they can shed on this?
Oh, prices were always "down" for RR bronzes... unless you were RBW. Rick was a shrewd and cautious buyer of silver, but he let his passion rule his pocketbook when it came to bronze. Dealers knew this.
This is the question now as I see it. When a major buyer drops out of the market after buying so many that some collectors gave up and moved to other specialties, how will the market rebuild? Just because one buyer paid $100 for ten ugly examples of one coin does not mean there are ten people willing to buy the least of them. There should be no problem finding happy homes for the best of the rarities but what happens to the rolls of culls? What happens to the bags of coins worn to the point that ID requires an experienced eye? I know you RRB specialists love all these coins but many simply have no eye appeal to the generalist collectors. It reminds me of the days when I was buying any Alexandria mint Severan I could find. Some sell for less now and probably always will.
I have some coins with RBW envelopes and the writing looks a little different. I'm not enough of an expert to say for sure. I wonder if it's the catalogers handwriting. I like your idea about the tags. The anchor coin, lot 852, was originally attributed as 194/2, which is close to where the actual 194/2 sold as lot 828. So both coins could be explained that way. What is the difference between those two anchor series 194 and 50?
I have a new thought about the handwriting on the envelopes. Andrew McCabe was generous enough to devote a lot of time to helping the RBW estate by organizing the many 100s of coins that weren't offered in either of the NAC sales. If the notes aren't Rick's, I bet they're Andrew's. I'm not the best person to explain the difference between the two bronze anchor series. To the everlasting disappointment of Rick, Andrew and other friends, I've never been able to drum up any real interest in RR bronze. I'm reasonably conversant in silver and competent in RR gold, but I think there are members of this list who can do a better job answering your anchor question than I can.
As far as the differences between the first and third anchor series(there is a second but it only includes the denarius), the difference is in the style of the coins, both the figures on the obverse and of the style of the prow. Compare the examples in NAC 61 and you should be able to see it. The engraving style of Crawford 50 is consistent with other bronzes of this earlier era and that of Crawford 194 is consistent with other bronzes of the bronze-only period of circa 169-158 BC and is generally in a more crude style than those of the earlier series.
