I thought it would be interesting to see this group's rankings of a number of Julius Caesar / Octavian aureii that have sold at auction in recent years. Feel free to support your ranking with your written analysis of each coin. Coin #1: Coin #2: Coin #3: Coin #4: Coin #5: (Sorry about the reversal of obverse/reverse on this last coin...)
Top mark from me is 5. Then... 3, 4, 2, 1 Thats my order of awesome. Analysis I will work on..sorry..
3, 4, 5, 2, 1. I feel that the engraving on 3 is superior and would prefer it over the others. Coin 3 was initially ranked in second place, but I have a hunch that there will be flaws on the coin that are only visible in hand. Two has weakness near the edge, and one has weakness in the portraits. That being said, I think they'd all grade and estimate the same. (Though one may grade a notch lower).
I am close. I would be 3,5,4,2,1 in order of preference. If i had to take a guess which would sell for most, thou, i would guess 5. My preference is mainly on style, then completeness.
Well i think i will go with, #5. has best details and is well struck.. #3 is well centered, with good details.. #4 is off flan fair details.. #2, #1 both have bit of a rub and a little off flan.. Still #5 is the best over all.....:thumb:
Here are a few selected tidbits used to describe each coin and condition, taken from the auction house's catalog: Coin #1: "Very Fine. Uneven strike as typically encountered with this VERY RARE issue, however better made than most exhibiting full legends and well rendered portraitures." Coin #2: "Good VF." Coin #3: "Good VF, well centered on both sides... The most artistic portrait of Julius Caesar on an aureus." Coin #4: "About EF... unusually well-centered on a full flan." Coin #5: "About EF... boldly struck with portraits and legends sharp." While I think that, overall, coin #5 would rank #1, to my eye the portrait of Julius Caesar on coin #3 is superior. The only detraction on coin #5 is the awkward rendition of Octavian's mouth area. I wouldn't rate coin #4 as "about EF" as was described in the catalog, but rather "good VF" which is the more conservative grade for #2 and #3 (although #2 seems less desirable than #3 or #4). Finally, a note of interest: coin #5 sold yesterday at auction for $370,000 plus a 15% buyer's fee, for a total of over $425,000. About 24 years ago, this coin was sold by a dealer to a private collector for $22,000! Compare this appreciation to other investments over that period...
I don't disagree with your writeup IOM. I would agree #5 is technically superior, full strike on a large flan so the entire strike is captured. To me, though, style is as important or more so than technical grades. If two coins are halfway close on technical grades, I will go for the better style every time. Maybe its the same as what I did in US collecting, much prefering an attractive AU to an ugly MS coin. For me, the "bonus" is when so many collectors value strictly based on grade. I love it when they feel an aXF is worth way more than a VF, because that allows me to get a VF of high style cheaper than their pricing structure. Concerning these coins, I simply don't believe I have ever seen such a fine, artistic likeness of Julius as good as #3. If I had deep pockets, and were a serious JC collector, that coin would be my penultimate achievement, grades be darned.
