To spur up even more ancient talk I figured I would make a thread on what my PM was mostly to Randy about. As my next coin purchase I plan on putting my coin money towards a fallen horseman ancient. I have budgeted it to about $50 but could do $60. Below are the ones that have caught my eye along with a description of why. I wont give the prices of these but reading your opinions could sway me with a decision should that particular one not be sold by then. 1. I love the detail of the reverse on this particular one but the biggest nag is that it doesnt have full legends on the obverse. 2. Not as detailed as the above but still not bad. I really like the desert pantina. I currently dont have any ancients that have it & its got nearly full legends. 3. Seems to have full legends but also on a larger flan, at 24mm. I do have a tendency to select good weight/size over small/less detailed ones. I realize the style of the horseman reverse is the same & there is others that are different but this particular reverse is the only one I seem to like of the style. So what are thoughts & suggestions?
Since you are collecting it due to the reverse, that is where I would worry. The style on coins 2 and 3 I would term average style, but coin 1 is fine style and nicely detailed. Of the three, if you wanted a falling horsemen type, I would think coin 1 would win hands down. Edit: For full disclosure I have friends on Vcoins, but I have no idea if an of these coins are theirs or not.
I guess I am a type collector in ancients as well. I collect what appeals to my eye with them. But I do read up on the emperor on the coin and so forth. I just like coins in general. But talk to me about which mint is better then the other when it comes to ancients and I go blank. Only a few months old into the ancient dabbling
I'm not a huge collector of ancients, but I came across this fallen horseman example a few years ago and couldn't resist. I think I paid around $40 for it.
If I had to pick one I would have to go with the desert pantina simply because it has more eye apeal for me. I dont buy coins simply for there value I actualy like to get ones that attract me LOL
I agree on the style, though I do like the patina on the second one. As for missing or unclear legends, I don't care much unless it's a case where what's missing would determine what kind of coin it is, and in this case, there isn't any question as to what the legend in A contains. I would go with A as well.
It is a matter of opinion. I like coin 2 because of the eye appeal despite being the more common, later version. It is nicer for its type than the other two are but should be cheaper than #3 because of the size. I also like coin 3 because it is the larger, earlier version (as is 1) but has decent surfaces. #1 is polished and would be my last choice. I'm a cheapskate and consider any of the three overpriced at $50. All three are Cyzicus mint. It is generally easier to find a nice FH from Antioch and I'd suggest that if you are going to have just one. RaceBannon's coin is nice suffering only from being part legend in the mintmark (still attributable). The ruler is Constantius Gallus rather than Constantius II and it bothers me that the holder does not list this difference. IMHO this one is worth about the $40 quoted. If the legends were on the flan completely, it would be worth more.
I didn't like the shininess of 1 either Doug but don't you think it could also be renwax? I have applied renwax to many of mine for protection and I guess I was thinking that is what it was. As for desert patina, when I started I bought so many coins from the middle east I am kind of burned out on desert patina. Its attractive at first, but try having hundreds of the little buggers and the attractiveness goes down. Yeah, I am too cheap for $50 to buy any of them. I am too spoiled with pick boxes or group lots on Ebay where these show up frequently. Chris
