All I can say is ....wow. And a that price no, I probably won't be bidding. Although I'm sure someone with the means will win that coin at auction and walk away a happy man.
I saw that this morning as well. Their prices are far off on the Greek coins also - I'd love that Kimon dekadrachm for the 30K estimate! I think that sestertius is indeed genuine, somewhat surprisingly, as it matches the previous picture from its 1958 Leu sale. The weight also hasn't changed so the green probably isn't bronze disease. Depending on how the next couple auctions go in the meantime, I'm considering trying to buy half of that sale. The aurei also look very nice, and why settle for having just one Colosseum sestertius? I wouldn't expect it to go any less than 15x the estimate.
I wonder if they just took the RIC prices straight from the book and used those? It looks like there is a 21% BP on the sale as well (a growing trend?) I took a quick scan of the 1958 catalog: The bottom (with new pictures, thanks to help from TIF ) is the one I just bought for about $150K on a $70K estimate. Heritage said there were two underbidders with the same bid and one other "very serious" bidder right beneath them so I think the price was pretty reasonable for it. I prefer the upper rows of the "Christophe Joron-Derem" example and the Colosseum side does have some very sharp detail throughout. Mine is from a slightly earlier die pair which is why it is visually slightly different. This one is also vastly superior to the one which is coming up at Heritage's CICF auction in my eyes. Has anyone heard of this auction house before? Most of the Greek/RR coins look like they've met the business end of a blowtorch one too many times but do have some nice pedigrees...
Here's the one which sold last month in Gemini XI. 9,000 USD + buyers fee. The estimate on this upcoming sestertius is just bizarre.
AJ I like your example, the one coming up, not so much. I'd pay more for a full legends, full centered Nero tet than for the OP coin. Just my two As.
My dealer's evaluation of this coin: "...totally smoothed, tooled and reworked. However, with this provenance it could be worth 20/25 K."
Interesting, I'll be the first to admit my lack of bronze experience (I've only ever bought two bronze coins). It looks identical to the 1958 auction plates so the tooling must have occurred before then? I suppose I assumed tooling was more of a recent method of deception. I'm going to see if I or my dealer can plan a trip to see the sale in the next few weeks as I'd still like to see these in-hand. I haven't yet reached out to him on it but I'll be curious as to if he condemns it as yours has (although I won't be surprised as I've seen the quality and selectiveness of your bronze coins!)
Update: I was told to "save my shekels" on this one. "Neither side is original and are heavily doctored. The pedigree and fact that it is a genuine Flavian Amphitheater sestertius is worth something but I'd stay away and save my shekels." I was willing to attribute the "enhanced" look somewhat to poor photography (as the rest of the sale is also quite badly photographed) and accept the fact that most of these have been smoothed/tooled to a degree, but that sounds like enough of a consensus to condemn it. That being said, acceptable problems will vary from person to person. For example, I would still much prefer it over this example which sold for $50K:
It's pretty easy to detect the tooling in the to-be-auctioned sestertius (top coin in photo below). Note that the seated figure on the reverse seems really well defined despite how worn (almost to flatness) the reverse has become. It's clear that it has been re-engraved to bring out the definition on the reverse. Tooling appears to have been done on the obverse as well, namely in the arches in the middle rows of the Colosseum; they seem way too uniformly detailed for this wear to be natural. In contrast, the bottom coin has been smoothed somewhat but appears otherwise normal. There is no evidence of tooling to enhance or bring out details that have been worn down. Clearly a much better coin. Interestingly, I find the above coin to be better than it appears at first glance. The pitting and roughness is very unattractive, but the details in the devices, both obverse and reverse, are quite good. If you can get past the roughness, this is certainly a coin to add to one's collection.
Is the last coin in the first photo a die match for the rough one in the last photo? I consider this last coin a serious candidate for adding some filler (Bondo?) and minor tooling to make it a $100k coin. It has good raised detail (except for the missing S of SC) so there would be little reason to recut raised detail. Filling the holes, smoothing and adding a new patina would turn this coin into a good looking item that would appeal strongly to many of the less well educated but big budget bidders. Should that be done? Of course not. Will it? It depends on who bought it. I'd save this photo and see if the next good looking example on the market looks familiar. As it is, I agree with Ides rating of the coin.
An update to those who weren't watching: this sestertius just sold for $97K (58K EUR hammer). Definitely a strange auction, to say the least - based on the other lots, they didn't spend much time at all researching their estimates.
