Hockey puck freed!

So I have wanted to get a “hockey puck” for sometime but they were a bit out of my price range for a while. Then I came upon this one and won it at auction!
It was imprisoned in plastic but now out and free to roam about
From NGC label: Ptolemy IV 222-204/4 BC
AE42. 74.36g
Please post your “hockey pucks”!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not the one I was thinking of lol but nice large old coin.

 

Same. 5 oz silver round

 

good job, Arcane

 

My tiny 38mm 38g Ptolemy is miniscule in comparison. I need a bigger one but they are out of my price range.

 

Egypt
Ptolemy IV
221-205 BCE
AE Tet
40mm 7.2mm thick 69.5g
Zeus Ammon
Eagle

 

Nice coin. Congratulations on its liberation.

I'm a bit dim about this, but I can't figure out how they can determine that a coin rated CH Fine for wear had an initial strike of 5 out of 5, since both wear and a weak strike can result in a coin with soft details in all the higher elements.

 

Here's mine:

PTOLEMAIC EMPIRE

EGYPT. ALEXANDRIA.

Ptolemy IV 221-205 BC AE Drachma. (75.52g, 41mm, 12h)

Obverse: Bust of Zeus Ammon right

Reverse: ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, cornucopiae in front, ΛΙ between legs

Reference: SNG Cop 199.

 

I like these huge chunky ones but can we get a side view comparison to see just how thick they are? They aren't much wider in diameter than mine but are almost 2x the weight.

 

Took some pics furryfrog:

 

That...is...AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

 

Beautiful!

Recently sold my old one


To upgrade to this one

 

Not quite as old, but could have been used as grapeshot during the Napoleonic wars, this heifer weighs in at about 2.5 ounces avdp.

 

Nice upgrade, @Finn235. I like the Zeus portrait, the eagle, the green patina, and the shape of the new coin. What are the weight and maximum diameter, of the new coin?

 

I saw that one and thought about bidding. It’s a good price for a fascinating coin. Glad it found a good home.

 

I do not pretend to be an NGC grader and have no idea where they would draw the lines between grades. I regret that I do not have a weakly struck Ptolemaic bronze to illustrate the point but perhaps my Hadrian sestertius will serve the point. This coin was weakly or flatly struck. I do not know whether it would get a 2/5 or what from NGC but more than that would be generous. In the old day, a coin like this could not be graded above fine because it has no laurel wreath detail but the coin really shows very little wear. There is a rather sharp line between the area with detail and the area lacking detail. In hand, the area without detail is rather flat topped rather than rounded over as seen on the recently freed mini-puck. This sestertius fell from the dies in Fine by old standards and Mint State using current slab style grading. It may have picked up some wear along the way but I'd consider a 'wear only' grade of VF-EF appropriate. 'Puck' on the other hand fell from the dies as a real gem MS and 5/5 for strike. Over repeated spend/handle sequences it slowly became Fine but the strike does not change after the hammer stops ringing in the mint. The guys at NGC are very adept at telling the difference and people pay them for their opinions on the matter. My opinions are free and worth every cent of what you paid. Seriously, I am a firm believer in the idea that the hobby would be better off if we all would stop grading coins beyond the 'I like it' and 'It stinks' level. Before every coin in the universe had been photographed, we needed a way of transmitting information on what a coin looked like using two letters or less. We don't now. There will be many different opinions of what makes a coin more or less desirable. I am in the camp that favors nice surfaces and tend to disagree with many NGC surface ratings. I would prefer the 'puck' here with 5/5 surfaces even if it were not as solidly struck. I certainly would not want the coin if it were rough enough to get a 3/5 for surface roughness but might tolerate better a coin that had a graffito/scratch that would be NGC 2/5 for surfaces. We each will have our preferences. That is the name of the game when 'grading' ancients. Modern coin grading assumes 'normalcy' in many ways and 'body bags' coins that do not meet the 'normal' definition. Almost all ancients are body baggable. Many collectors of modern coins will drop in here in the ancient section only long enough to discover that we don't know anything about the subject they worship.


Below is another sestertius (this one Commodus) lacking details on the high points. My early coin education called a coin like this 'brick cleaned' on the theory that the coin lost that high detail to being rubbed on a brick by some archaeologist intent on reading the coin. I believe this coin was struck better than the Hadrian but lost its high detail after it left the mint (whether to some stupid PhD candidate with a brick or some coin dealer/collector with a Dremel makes no difference). This means, I believe, NGC would down grade the surfaces number rather than the strike number.


In 1997, I posted my grading page for ancient coins but used the terms "Conditions of Manufacture" and "Conditions of Preservation" rather than "Strike" and "Surfaces". I then toyed with a way of assigning a numerical value to those two areas of concern but decided I was not willing to fight tradition. About that same time, I became aware of a suggestion (who remembers? - was it by Paul Rynearson???) that did assign relative value numbers to some things but I never was comfortable with trying to say this amount of legend loss is equivalent to that amount of surface deposits. I am happy that NGC has not tried to tell us that a coin VF 4/5, 3/5 is comparable to a VF 2/5, 5/5 or anything of the like. I do know that some people prefer AU 2/5 2/5 compared to F 5/5 5/5. I don't.

For the record, I do like the 'puck' and several other coins shown in this thread. If I post my coin, will we have a repeat of the previous 'fat wars' here when we discovered that my coin was not even in the top ten pucks or have all of those people moved along and no longer post here?
Ptolemy II AE46 - When I first weighed this, I got 90.0g but buying a digital scale to replace my old mechanical one with tiny weights reduced it to 89.9g unless you paid attention to that elusive hundredths digit that change according to factors like where the scale was located and whether the air conditioning was on. I suggest Arcane76 put puck on a high carb diet so it can someday play with the big coins.

 

Here's the octobol leaderboard post: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-official-cointalk-octobol-leaderboard™.367009/

My 93.27g (8mm thick) example used to be the leader.


Good to see that coin out of its plastic, @Arcane76!

 

@potty dollar 1878 : thank you! I had read a thread earlier in the year and liked the reference to these types of large coins

@Andres2 : Thank you! And nice coin! And awesome comparison pictures!

@furryfrog02 : this one was a lot lower in price than another I had bid on in a different auction. With what I have seen these size go for I feel I did ok since they are usually out of my range too. Nonetheless nice coin too!

@Alegandron: beautiful portrait!

@gsimonel : I can’t keep them in those plastic prisons! As far as how NGC does it: ‍♂️

@ancient coin hunter : lovely coin!

@Finn235 : nice upgrade!

@scottishmoney : nonetheless nice!

@Gavin Richardson : thank you! The price was good for sure! I wasn’t sure I wouldn’t be outbid.

@dougsmit : I agree with you on the “I like it” “It stinks” way of looking at it. I didn’t” buy the holder “. My opinion (and it is just my opinion no facts attached), I hate grading of coins, modern, ancient or any others. I do see the value in TPG for authenticity vs forgery especially since modern fakes are getting ridiculously good. I like that I can get a second opinion so to speak if I’m not sure on a coin ( although since NGC doesn’t guarantee authenticity not really sure how that holds up but I digress). But, again in my opinion, a single number( ie 64 vs 65 for modern MS )making hundreds or thousands of dollars difference in a coins value when the coin looks pretty much the same as the other is crazy. I would go back to circulated vs uncirculated/ doctored/cleaned undoctored/uncleaned, genuine/not genuine and then leave it to the collector to determine how much they want to spend on it if it is appealing to them. Rant over. No fat wars here haha I know my coin wouldn’t hold its weight carb diet or not. I’m content as a middleweight…

@Severus Alexander: thank you for the link! And I love holding the actual coin vs looking through the plastic at it. I can do that at a museum…

PS I love coin talk ancient forum! You guys and gals are great!

 

One other question, and pardon my ignorance and or laziness, what is that indentation,divot that seems to be in the center of these larger coins? Thank you!

 

That has to do with how they centered the planchets for striking, if I'm not mistaken.