Caligula Denarii fine style/ID

Two nice Caligula denarii. Which do you like better? Do you believe one or both are of fine style? Post yours!


Caligula (AD 37-41), with Divus Augustus. AR Denarius. Bare head of Caligula facing right. Reverse: Radiate head of Divus Augustus right, flanked by two six-pointed stars. RIC I 2. (slabbed NGC Choice XF 4/5 - 3/5, Fine Style)







Caligula, 37-41 AD. AR. Denarius. Bare head of Caligula r. Reverse: No legend. radiate head of Divus Augustus r. between two stars. With circular engraver's guideline around the portrait of Divus Augustus. RIC 2

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I prefer #1. I do not know enough about all dies in the issue to say where 'fine style' might start but I prefer the style on #1 enough to offset the better legends and other features of #2.

 

#1

 

...phftttt!.....to even have one (ANY ONE)would be a mountain i'd like to climb...

 

Forgot to add - the TPG labeled the first coin as having "edge marks" in addition to the grade given.

 

It's difficult to fully compare a slabbed vs. unslabbed coin, and I'd like to have a better definition of "edge marks," but my personal preference would be coin #1.

While the obverse portraits are similar, to my eye the portrait on #1 is more artistic. I also prefer the reverse portrait style of #1 despite what appear to be flan or striking defects.

Are the two coins similarly priced? Is it possible to get more detail about the phrase "edge marks" to determine if the slab is hiding some of those marks?

 

I've got a fourrée one with a hole




ATB,
Aidan.

 

....where'd you git dat..?!?!..it's a dandy of its own! ,,(wanna sell it?)

 

I prefer # 1 as well, especially the reverse portrait. The obverse portrait is indeed more artistic than the one on # 2, but it's difficult to "like" it -- Caligula was not an appealing-looking man! Fine style? Personally, I dislike the term. It's even more completely subjective than most terms used to describe the quality of an ancient coin, and I think it's ultimately rather meaningless.

 

I would go for #1. It appears to be more sharply struck, and I'm also usually sucker for well struck coins.

I wish I had been offered a piece like this when I was shopping for a Caligula denirus. The pieces I saw were cleaned and still cost a foture. I know these two also cost a fortune, but at least I would find the look pleasing.

 

CGB - in 2012.

Nah - not for sale

ATB,
Aidan.

 

I prefer #1.

 

..yeah...but i'd take # 2

 

i think the edge marks grade was a little harsh in my opinion. Giving it a prestigious Fine Style designation with 3/5 surfaces and adding that is silly. The first piece sold for over $5400 including buyers fee.

The other one is listed for nearly double that price on HJB. It appears to be the exact coin as this unsold lot at Heritage, except removed from the slab now. Unless they both have the same marks?https://coins.ha.com/itm/ancients/r...3-gm-11h-ngc-choice-xf-5-5-3-5/a/3054-30215.s

 

surface and fine style are unrelated. Style has to do with how the dies were engraved. Surface has to do with things that happen to the coin after it left the dies.

Barry Murphy

 

Sinister Style...

CALIGULA

RI Gaius Caligula AE As 37-41 CE Vesta seated S-C Sinister Left

 

yes I know that. What I was getting at it is that it is a beautiful coin and a shame they included edge marks, which I think is a non-issue with this coin. I assume the 3/5 took into the account the edge marks. Seems like it is a double whammy. It’s a great coin regardless, just a shame they added that detail to the slab to the detriment of the coins auction price

 

Edge marks should affect the value of the coin and are an issue regardless of the coin's beauty. It looks like at least one ding is visible on the reverse at 12 o'clock and would indeed reduce the value, along with the marks in the obverse fields.

To the style: I do prefer the style of coin #1 although I like the centering guideline circle on coin #2. Coin #2 is unfairly presented because of HJB's horrible photography: their in-hand views are much better.

 

You’re right, it does. Just saying that I believe the marks on this piece aren’t as bad as the slab highlights. I have a few pieces with worse marks, and didn’t receive edge marks designation.

Also , coin 2 has similar edge marks and was previously slabbed with no edge mark designation. Just saying I believe coin 1 was harshly graded.

 

I don’t remember the edge marks on this specific coin. But if we didn’t mention them we would get complaints for not mentioning them. As they can sometimes be under the prongs or difficult to see, we mention them. Most likely they are more significant than you can see in the photo.

Barry Murphy