preference: decrepit great rarity or EF common coin?

Tejas summarizes the situation well. In today's very digital world, ancient coins are quite analog. All EF coins are not equally EF. All interesting coins are not equally interesting. All rare coins are not equally rare. All imperfect coins did not become degraded in the same way. When we choose between that single coin and the 100 commons we have to face many other factors. Are the 100 coins all the same type? If all that matters is grade we should not care but I can't recall meeting a collector whose choice was collecting ancients by the mint roll. When we have a hundred of the 'same' thing we are very aware of how they are different rather than how they are alike.

A question for specialists: Do you feel the need to have an example of each of the common coins in your specialty? Do you get more satisfaction out of owning the finest example of something that exists by the thousands or the finest example of the very few known? What if the finest known is only VG? In my specialty collections, I want the VG but in my general collection, I'll hope that finest 'dog' finds a home somewhere else. The 1834 book on Roman Coins by Akerman only listed what he decided were 'rare' coins. He did not waste space enumerating all the types that existed but filled two volumes with 'rarities' even ranking them according to which were most rare among the rare. In 1999, David Vagi gave us a priced guide which, for example, listed a generic price for denarii of Septimius Severus in three grades (starting at $15) and then added eleven 'better' types that ranged from $5 more to twenty times as much in the same grade. His upgrades were based on market demand rather than rarity with a couple common but popular coins being listed separately and no mention of many types seen less frequently. Of his eleven, I have only five. In 1999, the difference between F and EF seemed to average around 10x. Today?
Obligatory coin images below show the Vagi mentioned 'upper' types I have. Each was +$5 in fine or as much as 3x in VF compared to the basal listing. I'd call mine VF. Are these now $50-100? Should I prefer a part share in one of the more desirable coins listed at $400-1500 in the same grade? This is the decision we all make.


For those not familiar with it, the link below is my January 2000 review of the David Vagi two volume set. It is sometimes easy to find single volumes offered separately not always mentioning that they only are offering one of the two. It is also possible to find some sellers asking several times as much as others so do shop around before buying. How much is it worth? As with the coins, that is very much a matter of opinion.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/book.html#vagi

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For my specialty collection, I care less about grade than I do about completeness, and I recognize an opportunity cost that comes from being a condition crank. I consider it wasteful to pay a huge premium for a high-grade example; the money necessary to choose an EF example over a gF could have been used to buy other coins.

These are common coins. I'm not only perfectly happy with them for about a $100 each, I'm hundreds of dollars richer for not seeking chEF examples of them.




The money I've saved by not seeking high-grade examples allows me to purchase other coins when the opportunity arises. A condition crank would say I've picked up some real dogs along the way. But when your goal is completeness and coins are extremely rare, you take what you can get.

This is the only known example of this coin.



There are only two known examples of this coin. @Orielensis owns the other one.



There are three known examples of this one.



There are four known examples of this one. @Marsyas Mike has one of them, too.



There are five known examples of this one.



I could show lots of other coins from my specialty collection that are known from fewer than ten specimens, but you get the picture.

How do I acquire all these rare coins? Because OVERALL, Faustina I and II coins are EXTREMELY COMMON and most people don't want 500 Faustina coins in their collection and one will do. So, they choose one in a slab with the magic letters "MS" or "EF" on it. It's good for me that 99+% of collectors turn up their noses at coins like this ...



... without recognizing it's one of the rarest coins ever produced for Faustina I.

But because only a few collectors actually want one, RARE DOES NOT MEAN EXPENSIVE.

 

Sometimes a spectacular common coin is a great rarity—at least in the realm of Campanian bronzes!

 

This coin is very common, but attractive (great condition, beautiful style). I like it a lot:




The coin below is exceptionally rare. It is a Follis of Odovacer in the name of Zeno and arguably the last large Roman bronze coin in the western empire. Finding a second exemplar for sale is next to impossible.




The Odovacer follis is objectively more valuable, but I hardly ever look at it, because of its unattractive appearance. I hang on to it for its historical value, but I derive no pleasure from it.

 

A generalist like me would usually prefer nice common specimens over one decrepit rarity. For a specialist things may well be different.

One point: if you spend a lot on a (decrepit) rarity, there's always the chance that a new hoard may turn your princess into a common, decrepit frog. Owls and Pantikapaion bronzes come to mind as examples (although they never were really rare rarities to begin with, I believe). Common coins, on the other hand, never turn rare.

This one I got cheap after they were found in numbers. If I had started collecting before they were found, chances are I would have spent many times the amount I did on a poor example, or I wouldn't have one at all.

 

@Roman Collector's and @Tejas's posts are two of the most resonant --not entirely for being two of the most recent.
From a medieval kind of place, I for one can't really imagine not collecting for historical significance first, rather than esthetics. Even (--!) in that context, the two aren't always reducible to a zero-sum game; just most of the time, where minor details like budget (and access, overwhelmingly online) are factored in.
With that as prolegomenon, here's my favorite frankly crappy coin. (Yes, previously posted.)

West Franks; Robertians (proto-Capetians, contemporaneous to late Carolingians). Hugh the Great, Duke of the Franks and Count of Paris, 923-956.
Long attributed to his son, Hugh Capet (r. 987-996), founder of the Capetian dynasty (cf. Duplessy, Royales tome I). Except, watch this (from the prior post).
...Found unattributed on Delcampe; maybe 23 Euros before shipping. You could compare it to this example, from CNG:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3595215
(A couple more examples:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?similar=6701440 .)

 

I somehow sense that rarity is not sought after nowadays. For example I got this coin which is only the 4th known for something like 400$ all in. A self proclaimed numismatic expert commented that it is not worthy of a high standard collection as it is off center. Nevertheless, several years passed and hoards of EL came in the market but none of these dies...


It's also funny that no 4 and no 5 in my 2021 top 5 are extremely rare and in good condition but nobody else seemed to be interested:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/pprps-top-5-for-2021.390692/

 

I think for most collectors rarity as such is not sought after. Most collectors look for attractive coins with especially attractive depictions and legends. If these coins are rare, this is just an unfortunate coincidence.

For example, the coin below is rare. The reverse type is not recorded for Aurelian:



However, I doubt that non-specialist collectors would pay a premium for this. After all the reverse is well known from Quintillus and it is not particularly exiting either.


On the other hand, the next coin (a recent and happy acquisition of mine) is both rare and attractive, because both the bust type and the reverse are very rare and very attractive. Most collector would want one of these, even if the coin wasn't rare:

 

I always wanted higher quality coins/ and NEVER will buy "holed"/ tooled/ grafitti/ other "details" examples. I do not mind a medieval piece that had a little clipping back in the day. However, I would not spend 10K on a MS-67/ when a MS-65 would go for half the cost. Sometimes ultra rare coins do not cost an arm and a leg.....
Like this one from Heritage/ Europe auction.
Francia/ Merovingian Kingdom
Austrasia/ Auvergne
AV Triens ND Brioude Mint
Theudebertus II King of Austrasia
UNIQUE/ cost 3K +fees 600

 

It all depends on typical condition for a given type, as well as rarity. Collecting for me is a series of compromises, so high grade is nice, but if there is, say, an interesting under coin visible, or countermark or striking anomaly, or nice patina, or other factors, that becomes a coin of interest for me. There are a lot of tangibles and intangibles in the equation.

This Bybos shekel is quite rare, but in terms of condition, probably a crude VF at best. Since I am not a newly minted or old minted billionaire, this is the best coin for me, for this type.



So, in answer to the OP question, it's complicated, relative and dependent on a myriad of factors. I have no overriding preference, really.

 

I generally stay away from "decrepit" even if it is rare. My attitude is if I can't afford a decent example (American grading Fine or a really exceptional VG), I won't own it.

There is something to be said for saving you money to buy something else. And there is something to be said about the really nice common coin that happens to be in a very uncommon condition.

I'm not talking about the "only known" MS-70 when there many MS-68s an 69s around. That's a fool's game. I am talking about a really pretty common coin that several or many points above the average example.

 

Doubly awesome to have that in the king's name, @panzerman. Guessing that's mostly a gold thing; I can't think of ever seeeing a Merovingian AR that wasn't anonymous.

 

Thanks!
The coinage of the Merovingians are all rare. However, Royal issues are 25X rarer then Municipal/moneyer exs. Theudebert II (only 2 AV coins are known/ one in French museum/ mine from Auvergne.
One ex. from another King 3 known sold for 55K.

 

Great coin! Merovingian gold coins are going through the roof. I had an interest in the coin below, auctioned by Dix Noonan Webb. A triens from the royal mint of Andernach in Germany. The estimate was a modest GBP 1200 to 1500. I expected GBP 3000 and it sold for GBP 8500 (despite having a decrepit obverse):


Lot 31, Coins, Tokens and Historical Medals (1 & 2 February 2022) | Dix Noonan Webb (dnw.co.uk)

 

For a private personal collection I prefer by far eye-appealing specimens of common or scarce coins. In my view of things, rarities rather belong to public collections to which scholars and researchers have access. In a private collection very rare coins, unique or known from 2 or 3 specimens only, make sense if it is a very specialized collection - for example a collection specialized in an emperor, a kingdom or a city.

The main question is: how much money am I ready to spend for my coin collection? Some people can afford paying 1000s of € or $ for a coin; some others cannot, or could afford but do not want, because their collection is not their top priority, they prefer spending for exotic or luxury vacations, supercars, superhomes, works of art, women and so on.

What would I do if I had the choice between an Extremely Fine sestertius of Philip the Arab and an Extremely F*cked sestertius of Didius Julianus, each one proposed for $ 500? I am sure I would prefer Philip the Arab: at least the coin will look nice in my collection.

 

Decrepit rarity. Every time.

 

The more I think about it, the less the question of "decrepit rarity" vs. "spectacular common coin" seems to make sense.

I think what is absolutely true for all collectors is that desirability of a coin rises with:
1. condition
2. pictoral/artistic interest
3. historical interest.

If I could have a common coin in spectacular condition, with great pictoral and historical interest this coin is desireable, despite not being rare. Unfortunately, coins that display one or more of the above characteristics tend to be rare (and expensive). As somebody above wrote, any ancient coin in spectacular condition is a rarity.

 

So true

Q

 

Really interesting to read the responses to this question. It’s a good thing we’re all a little different!

I really appreciate high grade coins, and whenever I settle for «Fine», I feel it leaves a lot to be desired, and I keep looking for upgrades. But that can be fun too!

Four of the purchases that I was the most happy with last year were rare and in poor condition, rare and in good condition but not historically signficant, and common but rare condition:

 

I strongly prefer rare and historically significant coins over perfect but common ones. And I really disagree with collectors who are ready to pay much more for what they consider an ideal coin. Main reason for that is that in my area of interest, city coins of Southern Levant, it encourages sellers to alter coins, sometimes heavily, to make them more attractive. As.a result priceless historical evidence that survived millennia is often lost, as details and legends are enhanced or recut to please the potential buyers. I just encountered a coin that has been known as unique for 20 years, in which the city name was modified so in the literature it has been attributed to a different city. Newly discovered example is unaltered, and shows very different legend.