Ancient Coin Collectors - Does Your Collection have a "theme."

Forgive me if this topic has been discussed before, but I've only recently stumbled upon this site.

I'm curious about whether or not most of the collectors of ancient coins have a theme or focus for their collections.

In my case, I struggled for about two years when I first started collecting, since the breadth and depth of ancient coins (Roman, in my case) is so large that a collector couldn't possibly hope to have a "complete" collection (whatever that means) of ancient coins. Unlike, say, collecting all the Lincoln-head cents of the U.S., you just can't collect one each of all the sestertii of the Roman Empire.

So I ended up focusing on the obvious but historically rich theme of the 12 Caesars, and am progressing toward my ultimate goal of having one each of the major denominations for each Caesar (with the obverse always being a portrait of the Caesar) -- as, sestertius, denarius, and aureus. Admittedly this focus is a bit of a cliche, but for me it really has helped to focus my collecting.

What does everyone else do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I pretty much buy what I like but I have been told by a few I am a portrait collector. I try to get the best coin with the best portrait to my eyes for the best price, if that makes sense. I cant afford the high grade stuff.

I had thought about doing a "Victory" set with coins featuring the god Victory but figured that'd be too expensive.

Right now though I am building a set of silvers with all the reverses for Crispina & Lucilla. Im pretty much halfway through both. I dont understand why I wanted to do it, neither are very historical but I have never built a set of anything coin related and for some reason those 2 are what I wanna do a set of.

Thats what makes collecting ancients fun. Some might think its stupid & some may give you props, so long as you enjoy it thats all that matters.

 

Good insight. Your comment above mirrors my personal sense of collecting -- having some sort of theme makes the hobby even more enjoyable, in addition to becoming immersed in the ancient history that surrounds these coins in the first place.

 

I believe every collection should have two parts. One is a specialty attempting to have all of something like your 12 Caesar set. The other is made of coins that spoke to you and convinced you they were neat even though they were not in your specialty. When your specialty gets bogged down and you can't see yourself adding a coin very often, you look at the 'others' and see if there is already the start of a pattern there (perhaps Victories?). That is when you start specialty #2. You still keep an eye out for that Caligula sestertius or whatever it was that was the hard to find one but you are more active for a while looking for #2. If you follow this pattern for a few decades you might have a dozen specialties but the fact remains that collecting is more fun when you can find coins to buy. My prime specialty is the Eastern mint denarii of Septimius Severus and the last year saw one coin I did not have come to the set. I'm glad I had a few backups since a year buying one coin would be less than fun.

 

I'm with Mat, Doug. and others, buy what I like; which isn't always what others like . Completing a set is more up to you as to what makes up a set, and what will go into it. You can always change the parameters of what your set will be. I like Large/middle bronze from Augustus to Severus Alexander allot. I like the denarii too though. I like the Constantine ere Ae's allot too, like the fallen horseman type, or Sol invictus. I've been looking for more Greek coins I like recently, that I can afford

 

I have a few sets I'm working on and in the past I did buy everything and anything to buildup some hands on experience with ancients but now I hold off on buying till I get what I'm after. I have enough to hold me over for now and I'm after coins with more of a different/odd/scarce variety instead of a lot of common coins but these help me to spot varieties, and added knowledge and experience so I'm glad I bought them.

 

Although I don't collect coins, I do accumulate them to better understand the period of Roman history that interests me the most: The Third Century.

Without some sort of focus or goal, Ancient coins for me would be too overwhelming and disorganized (and costly!)

guy

BTW: I don't think I have more than two low grade denarii from the "Twelve Caesar set." Don't care. I'd rather have a quality Laelianus (an unsucessful usurper of the usurper Postumus) than an equivalent-valued one of the "Twelve Caesars." (Unfortunately, I haven't "accumulated" that coin, either.)


Coins above are of Caracalla and wife Plautilla, Geta, Trajan Decius, and Aurelian.

 

i'm thinking of doing that!!

besides the victory set, i collect coins with standards on them. and whatever else "speaks" to me.

 

I agree with everyone here, (well we ARE a small little group here).

I collect coins mainly to force myself to learn more about the history. I simply know myself, and know if I have an item I am much more intellectually curious about the era than if I don't.

As for coins, I am always open to a coin that speaks to me, but most of those I have bought became basis of mini-specialties. My first specialty was Sassanid followed closely by Hepthalite. Both of these designs I just loved. From there I pursued Byzantine for a while, especially anonymous bronzes of which I completed a set. All of the while I liked ancient chinese so pursued them at the same time. Eventually, I noticed I had coins from all over the silk road except for the "middle". As such, I am now pursuing Central Asian, particularly sogdian.

So, that is sort of my path. I never really laid out pursuing Roman, but since they are so much more common than what I pursued I have collected maybe 1000-1500. Of a subset, I would pursue "art deco" looking early 4th century pieces, and I have bought some for that goal. The rest of my roman are basically opportunistic buys, as well as greek coins, just coins calling out my name but not really in a structured collection. Examples of this would be my Cleo VII bronzes I bought mainly because I thought they were good deals. Other examples of good deals would be the large group I just bought at CICF, I bought them because I simply thought they were too good of a deal to pass up.

 

To a great extent, my interest in the 12 Caesars period was inspired by the great British TV series "I Claudius" (adapted from Robert Graves' book). I ended up buying the DVDs and have watched the entire series a number of times.

In fact, one of the first truly inspiring coins I acquired had the "Fides Praetorianorum" reverse that commemorated Claudius' being raised to emperor by the Praetorian guard, exactly as history and the TV series portrayed the event.



CLAUDIUS 10 B.C. - 54 A.D.
AV Aureus (7.79 g.) Rome 44 - 45 A.D.
RIC 25
Obv. TI CLAVD CAESAR AVG P M TR P IIII laureate head right
Rev. Battlemented wall IMPER RECEPT enclosing praetorian camp, Fides Praetorianorum left.

It remains today one of my favorite (probably THE favorite) in my collection.

 

I think that coin would be the favored, and highlight, of 99% of all ancient coin collections.

Spectacular coin.

 

That is a coin that deserves to have it's pedigree posted. And there's no sense in hiding it, I've already looked it up!

I started, like everyone does (or at least should), by collecting whatever caught my eye and budget. Historical interest was always a driving factor. Over time, I was able to train my eye to recognize and appreciate coins like yours. Alas, my wallet was not so fortunate! Luckily, I became fascinated by the Roman lead and bronze tesserae - rare, poorly studied, and generally affordable for me.

I now have over a hundred cataloged pieces, as well as a few in the mail and a few more of uncertain authenticity and attribution. My library has *nearly* every major and minor work on the tokens. I even wrote my undergraduate thesis in archaeology/history on the tesserae.

Here's an attractive specimen of mine, and a good representative of the series:

ROME
1st-3rd century AD
PB Tessera (18mm, 2.81 g, 6 h)
Roma seated left, holding Victory and spear
She wolf standing left, head right, suckling the twins Remus and Romulus
Rostowzew 1661, pl. VII 71; Turcan 573​

 

You know the funny thing Bill? When I saw this piece, I would have sworn it was Ostrogothic. The reverse is stylistically identical to my Ostrogothic Rome piece, even the same grade.

Does that me we both are unafraid of unloved, lower quality pieces, or is it just we collect weird stuff?

 

duplicate

 

I think it would be easy to assemble for romans, even if you added some of the big bronzes but if you toss in Greek "Nike", then it can get pricey and thats what I feared would happen to me.

Standards are another good one

 

My end goal in numismatics is to end up in Ancients. I'll most likely start with babalonian/mesopotamia only because I've been there.

 

I suggest everyone get over the concept of having a complete set of anything ancient. In the case of Victory, Jotapian will hang you up a while (18 survive?). The reverse of the one existing Silbannicus coin reads VICTORIA AVG but the victory shown is a statue held by Mercury so you might not need that one anyway.

 

I hear what you are saying, but I look at it in reverse. The beauty of ancients is YOU decide what a "set" of anything is. ANonymous bronzes? You decide if CLass N is really needed. Victory's? Who says Jatopian is even part of it? This is what I love about this hobby, since its nearly impossible to describe any set, there effectively is none other than what YOU decide. This cannot be overestimated in how wonderful this freedom, and free of the tyrrany of whitman "holes" this is.

 

:hail::hail::hail::hail:

 

My point was that if you are worried about having to have expensive Nike types you are no better off staying with Romans since there are expensive and cheap in both camps. I love the idea 'tyranny of the Whitman folder holes' which is why I don't like the idea of sets. Specialties, yes; sets, no.