What's a "good" minimally "high" grade for Ancient coins?

Of the 13 gold coins in my current collection, this Nero aureus comes closest to what I would call "mint state" or FDC:



Does this help?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You need to do your research. Check Vcoins, acsearch, cng
https://www.cngcoins.com/Search.asp...1&SEARCH_IN_CONTAINER_TYPE_ID_4=1&VIEW_TYPE=0
You need to know what you are looking at. You will pay less for a tortoise that has only 3 feet for example. And if you ar

 

Granted these are in various conditions, types, relative rarities, etc... the price difference is about 10K from the most expensive to the least expensive.

I prefer the details on the reverse of 1, 2, and 4, but something about that last one I like. I don't know what it is. So, I'll have to figure out the "average" realized prices for each type and condition, and try to do better than that.

 

You also need to beware of fakes. Keep a link to ForgeryNetwork close to hand
http://www.forgerynetwork.com/viewa...f2vYy3sF2SpMb5EMxrg==&srco=1&num=20&srchall=0

 

All of the turtle coins you posted are in VF condition and will cost you an arm and a leg. Maybe all four of your limbs. I have one I paid $300 and it is in no where near the condition of these.

 

I would start with something you like, but in a price range you can spend and buy half a dozen and not feel stretched for coin funds. Increase the price you will pay as you feel more comfortable. A quick look for Turtles on acsearch.info returned 500 coins. A quick look at the first page gave a price range of $200 to $28,000. I feel comfortable buying the "right" coin at the bottom end of this range but not the top. I fear that one of the items I really want is close to the top range.

 

Thanks for the compliments on some of my coins! Personally, I would recommend coins graded VF with the full detail visible. I consider that to be a "sweet spot" in pricing. I paid premiums for many of my coins for either pedigree or condition but just a couple grades down doesn't sacrifice that much for the same history.

My Aegina tortoise is a good example - it isn't a perfect coin but it's the highest relief and broadest flan of any I've come across. You'll come to determine what attributes "speak" most to you, and many of those can be acquired in quality coins for much less than I've paid.

For me, I wasn't going to bid on the coin based on the catalog image but when I saw it in hand, I couldn't let it go and I'd have paid a fair amount more, but that's just because it "spoke" to me:



And, for what it's worth, this used to be in an "AU" NGC holder but it was promptly cracked out.

 

I agree, and what's great about ancients is that you don't need to fit any particular narrow region (i.e. just Mercury Dimes or Morgan Dollars). The Roman Republic has a tremendous amount of history, although I will say that Greece has a great amount to offer from a historical perspective as well, but that it is a bit less accessible overall. Perhaps the breadth of Greece is a bit of a detriment to appreciating all of the moving parts.

The Roman Republic can also be a jumping off point into some portions of Greece, like Carthage, the infamous enemy of Rome, which minted this stater around 260 BC:



Also, to add to the discussion, this coin would probably grade "MS" or "Ch MS" at NGC, but I'd still be hesitant to call it truly "FDC". It's close, but not quite 100% perfect. The definitions they use for each grade are different than how ancients have been graded historically but they use (mostly) the same grade names. Even if NGC were perfectly consistent in their own terminology/grading, they aren't consistent with the broader ancient collecting world, which results in many clashes.

This quote from NGC's website is somewhat helpful, but their grades still leave a lot to be desired:

"The grades of NGC Ancients will in some cases be higher than the “net grades” assigned elsewhere in the marketplace. Some coins described as Choice VF in an auction catalog might be graded EF or AU by NGC Ancients if the absence of detail is caused by worn dies and / or a weak strike rather than by actual wear. In such cases, the grade will be assigned accurately and the negative aspects of strike weakness and / or worn dies will be reflected in a low score for Strike."

https://www.ngccoin.com/specialty-services/ancient-coins/grading.aspx

 

Excellent example! I pursue Carthage, Italic issues, etc. that interacted during Rome's struggles to become great. Your stater is beautiful.

 

just lurking on this one again...but a fun read.

 

I agree. Sort of. Different discussion on a different thread.

As to the OP, the Sheldon scale doesn't apply. This coin averages "X" grade because, while this coin averages "Y" grade because. You can't compare an average Trajan Denarius to an average Gordian III Denarius because there were different economic factors that encourage/discourage use among the people. To give a more contemporary example, you can't compare a 2016 Kennedy Half Dollar with a 1953 Franklin Half Dollar.

 

I actually really looked at the slab in this thread for the first time and see NGC used a coffee table book as an attribution reference! ROFL!!! That's a real gem!

Listen, if you want slab your coins...whatever. To each his own storage method.

If you want to rely on the slab for an accurate grade, authentication, or even proper identification of the coin...your nuts.

You're been warned.

 

For a fiver they could add this to their library
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/1619...ICEP3.0.0-L&ff14=122&viphx=1&ops=true&ff13=80

 

@iPen I hope you decide to get into collecting ancients. It will give you a new found appreciation of what this hobby is all about.

 

I'm very excited => please post your tortoise winners (great coin-choice)

 

I don't love the MS designation for ancients, but every once in a while it can legitimately be applied. A few examples:

 

I imagine some coins were passed down through collections from the time they were minted, never having to suffer the abuses of poor storage. I can easily see that scenario with some of the coins you and AJ and Ides post. Still, I prefer the term FDC, as MS confuses the grading of moderns with ancients.

 

Holy Shekel. Well I have a new favorite AJ coin. Jesus.

 

I agree with John. MS sounds too much like the Sheldon scale.

 

Mint State and FDC aren't really synonymous though, although I agree they often are used that way. The way I use the terms, MS means exactly that: a coin in the same condition now as the day it left the mint, with neither wear from circulation nor post-striking damage such as corrosion. A MS ancient coin can have quite significant defects however such as poor centering or areas of flat strike. It should have full luster or very nearly so, although that luster can now be toned over.

FDC on the other hand is a description rather than a grade per se. A true fleur de coin specimen, in addition to being unworn, should be perfectly centered and very well struck, exhibiting the complete types on both sides with nothing missing at all. It should also be struck from reasonably fresh dies that retain even the finest details that frequently are lost as the die is used. Ideally, it should also be from dies of the very best style for the issue, although that isn't quite a requirement to warrant the FDC description. Think of it as an example the die engraver might include in his portfolio on a job interview.

Phil Davis