Hey guys, I just received my grades from a batch of coins sent to NGC. One of the coins was an Alexander the Great bronze coin. It graded out as an XF with a “die shift”. Is that a feature, a flaw, or none of the above? I could see how that would be a feature of a modern coin but I would think mistakes were made all the time while they were punching those ancient coins. Anybody care to share an opinion on what that means? Does it add value to the coin? Am I going to hell for having ancient coins graded? (I needed it to fit in with the rest of my coins which are all slabbed)
Some ancient coins (especially the high relief Greek ones) were probably struck more than one time in the die. Die shift means that it wasn't completely lined up for one of the strikes - it's basically the same as machine doubling on modern coins. It isn't taken as a positive, and can be between a neutral and negative impact on the price and marketability of an ancient. My Alexander the Great tet has die shift on the reverse; probably what kept it under $500. It is notoriously difficult to photograph, but looks fine in hand. The die shift is most noticeable in front of Zeus's face and the top of the eagle's head.
LOL. Asking that question on this forum is like... BTW, I use the same excuse. I entomb mine just to be consistent with the rest of my collection. It has a few other benefits as well as some disadvantages. Mixed bag. But do it if you must, and if you don't mind the hassle and expense and raised eyebrows. Never mind those people waving hammers. Just speak nicely to them and stay out of their way.
Steve, To a "purest" a die-shift on an ancient coin is a common flaw. To many collectors of ancient coins it isn't important, especially considering ancient coins are struck by hand. I have backed-off on acquiring coins that have a strong doubled image unless the coin was extremely rare or a high grade. One such coin is pictured below. There is a strong die shift on the reverse of this coin that is very noticeable on the right side of the inscription. I eagerly paid $750.00 for this coin . I later put the coin in a Heritage auction & it sold for $3,840.00 !
A die shift is definitely a "flaw", in that it is a sign of an imperfection in the striking process. But a coin can be beautifully struck with nice clear details and a slight die shift clearly visible and lock way better, and be way more valuable, than a coin that was perfectly struck but with much poorer detail. So you can have a XF with die shift versus a F without... Also, a die shift is evidence of the ancient coining process and so is valuable in its own right. No, you are not going to hell for having coins graded, just spending a bit more time in purgatory considering your actions. (Joke!!!) To me, it is not necessary for two reasons. 1) Ancient coins were all hand struck from hand carved dies so there is not "prefect" base type as there is with modern coins. And while grading (at least the F vs VF etc, not the 67 vs. 68 type) can be a good way to signal the quality for sales purposes, it is no longer the only way. 2) With the advent of easy cheap digital photography and transmission of images a photo is way better than a VF vs EF. Don't worry bout making your ancient coin fit in with your other coins. It knows it is older and wiser than them and doesn't need to adapt to their modern ways..... SC
I agree that it is all part of coins being made by hand. I only have one coin with a die shift, and it is quite minor, yet there are times when my eye is drawn straight to it. It's mostly noticable just above the lions head and bulls tail. I just remind myself to enjoy the whole design and beauty of the coin and remember why I bought it in the first place!
OK the mystery thickens. I received the coin back. The holder lists it as “XF scratches”. But NGC’s online entry lists it as die shift. Do you think this was a mistake by NGC? Here are photos.
Personally, I would bust it out of the plastic tomb, save the little tag, and IGNORE what it says. It is a piece of history that has survived over 2,300 years without today's sonic-welded plastic doll-box. Give the man some breathing room... ALEXANDER III MEGAS MAKEDON - AEs Makedon Alexander III the Great AE17 5.6g 325-310 Alex-Herakles lion skin - B A bow case club Coiled SNAKE Price 385 Makedon Alexander III 336-323 BC AE 17 Struck ca 325-310 BCE Herakles hd r wearing lion skin - Bow in bow case and club branch Makedon Alexander III AE 17mm 6.7g Hd Herakles R lionskin AΛEΞANΔΡOY club bow-case thunderbolt M Makedon Alexander III 336-323 BC AE 16 4-1g Salamis-Cyprus mint Herakles club bow quiver SA Price 3143 Makedon Alexander III 336-323 BC AE 19 Quiver Club Makedon Alexander III 336-323 BC AE 18 Bow Case Club Makedon Alexander III 336-323 BC AE 16 Eagle Tbolt Crescent
This is my coin collection. It’s all different kinds of coins. You collect the way you want to collect and I’ll collect the way I want to collect. Those are nice coins but it doesn’t solve my dilemma of determining if NGC made a mistake.
I don't see a die shift. I see a reverse with an off-centre die. An amateur numismatist can perhaps mistake the two terms but a professional firm like that should know the difference. SC
Steve, Your photos aren't the best , but I can see some obvious scratches on the reverse of the coin probably made while someone attempted to remove incrustation. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it . If I were you, I'd contact NGC & have them correct their listing, it's an obvious mistake on their part . There is no visible die shift on your coin. Most CT members like their ancient coins raw so they can handle them. Nearly all my high grade coins have been slabbed because I don't want them handled, but I have many coins I wouldn't consider slabbing & some I've freed from slabs. Some collectors get hyper over the subject so don't let it bother you.
