This is a perfect example of why lrbguy is right to be confused after 30 years in the hobby. Of the bunch, I would value the 2010 CNG coin as the least desirable due to what I consider poor obverse style. Severus Alexander is a respected member of our community so when we can not even agree on best vs. worst how can we possibly assign cash values on any given day in any given place. People in NYC, London, Paris etc. pay and expect to pay more for everything they buy - not just coins. There is no price guide for ancient coins like a Redbook for good reason. We each will pay what we will pay and wonder why someone else pays what they pay for coins we don't like well enough to buy for any price. I don't own a Venus Genetrici Domna but do have a few dozen Domna denarii I would not trade for any of the coins shown here. Most are from other mints. This is the game as we play it. For the record, I prefer the 2009 CNG coin ($135) shown last above but consider the $58 coin the best fit for me despite its lesser style reverse.
Touché!! Can I send you pics of my favourite coins for your book? This is a fun game to play. I didn't actually say which one I would prefer for my own collection. After all that, and throwing money to the wind, I would actually pick the OP coin and @Suarez's favourite. That's because I'm fundamentally a portrait guy (I suspect Rasiel is too) and I love the style and preservation of that portrait. Doug's favourite would be a close second (2009 CNG 135 USD), again because of the portrait style. I also like the 58 USD Cayón, the 90 USD CNG (nice toning! decent portrait style, pity about the legend), and the 104 USD Naumann (better portrait style than the previous two, pity about the reverse surfaces and o/c). EDIT: I forgot about @lrbguy's OP denarius! For portrait style it's up there with the other two standouts for me. Obviously it falls down on grade/strike a bit though. Still, it would be in my top group. You'll notice that the 135 USD 2010 CNG that I said was "clearly better than the OP" is not on my list. That's because I was trying to be objective, and I do regard the obverse style as being visually arresting & interesting, if not to my taste. Reverse style is good. Plus the grade, centring, legends, surfaces and esp. the detail are excellent. All of which makes me think that @Marsyas Mike got pretty much the right answer back on p. 1. I also think the broad agreement on style in this thread is interesting. Perhaps it's a more objective matter than I thought.
Thanks for the discussion folks. I appreciate the penetrating analysis of the factors at play here. I must admit that in my eye the coin CNG sold is not free of fault enough for me to pay what it brought. But then again, if it had been pristine it probably would have gone even higher. (More people can afford it when employment is high.) In the end I have to admit that reaching for the heights is not my game. By the same token, I'm not content with material below VF unless it is verifiably all there is. Most of what I am buying is mainstream enough that it makes no sense to buy spacefillers when the wait for a better example to come along is not likely to be a long one. One thing is sure, there is no shortage of fine material to spend your money on. Ain't that the truth!?
I think Doug sums it up pretty well and most has been said about this. But it also points out that we all perceive coins a bit differently from one another. While the OP coin is just about top end of the scale in my opinion (aside from a little weakness in the lettering well preserved, centered, struck, style, etc) it's not a coin I would give a second glance to and would not personally own. Thus I would personally value it at the bottom of the value scale. And this is one of the reasons why people can get good deals from any dealer. If that coin was in my inventory I would possibly price it around $65.
@lrbguy - thanks for sharing the OP and triggering an interesting discussion - I like the approach of matching a denarius and antoninianus as a milestone in a collection. Although I have a few coins, Julia Domna not an area of focus for me but the thoughts shared seem broadly applicable: price complicated by multiple objective and subjective factors : who shows up at the auction, style, metal, quality, rarity, availability...as every ancient coin is unique, there isn't a purely objective answer on price. Illustrating the subjectivity: would your coins as a pair (denarius and antoninianus), with a bit of their story attract a few extra bids? The table from @Severus Alexander is fun to look over and "play the game". There is more data available today with acsearch, sixbid's new archive, coryssa, etc. to see trends and compare past examples. As the more common Venus Genetrix has not made an appearance - here's the coin (GBP 85) after all auction fees and postage...real costs which are not represented in a lot of databases or discussions of "what I paid". IMO a much harsher portrait of Julia Domna on this coin. Maybe another factor in what someone is willing to pay? All other factors equal,would a prettier or happier Julia get a higher price? Is there a reference that does a nice job of highlighting how portraits have changed over time, with public perception, and across mints for a given emperor or empress? This book comes to mind, I only have Volume I, and find it light in its observations. The few journal articles that I have seen seem to focus more on hair styles than overall portrait style and portrait details. How much objectivity could there be in style assessment and what impact might that have on associated value...IMO formal rating systems can change pricing by making more visible what many may not see.
