Strike vs. Centering

It's hard to find something perfect at an affordable price. This one is well-centered and has a nice obverse (with a horn) but was struck with a worn reverse die, so it's kinda mushy. I like it, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think that, as usual, Doug is right. For me, centering is very important. I'll accept more wear to get the whole legend on the coin. Neither one of the OP coins would do it for me. They are common, so I'd wait.

 

For me, on a Roman coin the portrait is all-important. Ideally, it must be artistically pleasing, showing character and be in sharp condition. The reverse, lettering, edges, centering are all level B for me. I'm much interested in Provincial portraits and designs, but some of your denarii are first class. Nemo and IdesOfMarch01, I take my hat off for yours!
Here's an Elagabalus that definitely shows ominous character: malevolent child and petulant eagle alike.
BI Tetradrachm, Elagabalus, year B (219). Antiochia ad Orontem. 23.5 mm, 10.60 gr.

 

As many others, I would wait, both OP coins lacking the eye appeal that would urge me to jump on them "brainless"

Of course centering is very important, but sometimes, engraving style and/or strike quality push me to fall off the wagon. The best example I have is my Otho denarius, where you can hardly read more than an O from the emperor's name, yet, 20 years after I have bought it, I still have to see a better portrait (to my eyes of course, tastes and colours, you know....)


Otho, Denarius - Rome mint, AD 69
IMP M OTHO CAESAR AVG TR P, Bare head of Otho right
SECURITAS PR, Securitas standing left
3.50 gr
Ref : RIC # 8, RCV #2162, Cohen #17

And that RR denarius suffers from a bit of off centering, but the strike on the obverse was so good that I couldn't resist, despite part of the obverse legend lacking. Fortunately the portrait is all there : would the nose have been cut off, I would have gone away


L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, Denarius Rome mint, 62 BC
PAVLLUS LEPIDVS [CONCORDIA] diademed and draped bust of concordia right
Trophy with Lepidus Paullus on the right and three captives on the left (king Perseus of Macedon and his sons). TER above and PAVLLVS at exergue
4.00 gr
Ref : RCV # 366, RSC, Aemilia # 10

Q

 

I can see every curl in Otho’s wig. Extraordinary.

 

I have really enjoyed reading these responses and different philosophies, as well as looking at your posted examples. In the process, I’m also learning more about exactly what I want from this coin. I now quite fancy the reverse with the “Elagab” legend.

So I have gone from just looking for a simple space filler to now caring much more about which coin I’m buying. Such is the price of knowledge.

Here’s a beautiful example from the stock of Mark Breitsprecher. He calls attention to the fact that on the reverse, there is “clear evidence of the removal of the star in the left field and re-cut into the right field.”

Could someone enlighten me on the significance of that moved star? Did they just fill in the die from where the old star was? And why did they move it?

 

I believe that fields marks primarily served an internal function in the mint, a means of identifying which group struck the coin-- quality control.

 

The theory I've seen tossed about-- one that makes sense to me-- is that the star represents El Gabal, the Syrian Sun God. Elagabalus was the High Priest of El Gabal and the reverse scene depicts a sacrifice to his god. Wouldn't the priest be facing the god, or the representation of the god? Coins with the star behind him were mistakes by a Roman engraver unfamiliar with the Syrian god and on some such coins, the error was smoothed out of the die (as is the case with the Breitsprecher coin; this causes a bump on the flan) and re-engraved in the correct location.

There are instances in which a star is in both fields, so with this theory I guess the engraver decided to just leave the mistake and add another. Someone showed a great example of a two-star coin recently but I can't find it. There are also coins on which the star is behind him (see this example from Sevvy). Both appear to be much less common that the star in front.

I have one in which the star was engraved behind the emperor and then changed, or abandoned partway through the engraving of the star.


Elagabalus
AR denarius, Rome mint. Struck CE 221-222. 3.55 gm
Obv: IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG; laureate and draped bust right, with “horn” on forehead
Rev: SACERD DEI SOLIS ELAGAB; Elagabalus standing right, holding club and sacrificing from patera over lighted altar; star to right; faint star in left field
Ref: RIC IV 131; Thirion 302; RSC 246

 

but there are sometimes issues without a star. So the combinations give you four controls- no stars, star in left, star in right and two stars.

 

Here's the transition. The coin I posted earlier is a rare, initial, SACERD DEI SOLIS ELAGABAL type, with the emperor sacrificing left not right, and with the star erroneously behind him rather than before him.

Note that on the obverse Elagabalus is still unbearded, confirming the early date of summer 221.

We know that the star behind the emperor was wrong, because on quite a few dies of all four emperor-sacrificing types the star was eradicated from behind the emperor and re-engraved in front of him.

Later examples (Notice the beard) have the eradicated star:

And finally the correct star in front with no error:

 

PS. The normal type, emperor sacrificing right, star before him, was represented by 181 specimens in the Reka Devnia hoard, compared to 3 specimens for this early variety. (Thanks to CClay for these details.)

 

I should have included .......... “and, on occasion, the quality and elegance of the lettering (to my Calligrapher’s eye)”.

 

I just looked up some of Curtis' arguments on the star placement and, as usual, they are pretty convincing.

 

This is all very helpful. Breitsprecher’s comments seem to imply that the star was more significant than a simple control mark. And it seems that the die engraver goes to a lot of trouble to change this mark, which suggests to me that the placement of the mark had a higher iconographical purpose than just mint control.