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

Great distinction, thank you!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Allowing MS to include coins that left the mint with significant defects leaves us with the real possibility of a VF coin actually being better than a MS. I do not have MS coins that demonstrate this but there are many coins that entered the world with no detail. The Hadrian sestertius below has relatively little wear and lots of hair detail at the back of the head but the higher points are completely flat. The coin was born simultaneously MS and F??? Today the face and back of head look EF. We used to say VF required an intact laurel wreath so this one is aF at best.

This is a point I feel is poorly addressed in standard US grading. A coin can be MS60 or MS69 but the tiniest bit of circulation wear drops both to AU58. Which is a better looking coin - a boldly struck (full head, full steps or whatever) AU or a miserable when made bottom level MS60? That is why some of us prefer Steve's grading. I do not wish to disparage the Sheldon system as it was originally intended but the way it grew after leaving large cents and entering general use by people willing to pay ten times as much for MS65 and MS63 is not pretty.

 

You read my mind! I was about to write a post describing exactly the same difference between MS and FDC.

Here's an example of a denarius that I think is mint state -- i.e., it left the mint in the same condition as it is now -- but isn't FDC due to the weakness of the obverse legends and some of the detail on the reverse:



DOMITIAN 81 - 96 A.D.
AR Denarius (3.59 g.) Rome 73 A.D. RIC Vespasian 680
CAES AVG F DOMIT COS II Laureate head right. Rev. Domitian riding on horse prancing left, holding scepter in left hand and raising right

Note that in the auction catalog, this coin was described as "almost FDC."

 

I hate the term "almost FDC" which we're seeing more and more. I think it really is akin to being "a little bit pregnant." A coin either is FDC or it isn't.

 

Even if you accept that the obverse of the above coin is a result of a flat strike, the reverse is so egregiously tooled that it could never be remotely considered MS. The ruts around the reverse legends and devices make the coin appear almost cartoonish; most tooling isn't this obvious.

It's not my intention to denigrate any individual's coin, and I agree with Doug's observation about the obverse possibly being close to its appearance when it left the mint, but the reverse could not possibly have appeared that way when it was struck.

 

I'll bet my hat that this reverse is not tooled at all. Those impressions around the letters are a common feature of 2nd and 3rd century large bronzes.

 

Seems unlikely, but maybe you could illustrate other examples of this type of lettering. Maybe they're all tooled; most bronzes seem to be.

Also, note on the obverse the rut under the legend at 3 to 6 o'clock...

 

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/hollow_coins.html

I'm staying out of this and let the big dogs fight but some may enjoy the above article. The green is wax. The coin has been cleaned and waxed by a previous owner. Getting all of it off is not easy.

 

This decade old thread cites examples in gold, silver, and bronze. I have handled enough examples that it's not even notable. To my knowledge, there's no consensus as too what causes it, but it is definitely not tooling.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=22867.0

 

For the record: I'm in the 'thermal wave' camp and will point out that we start seeing evidence of using two reverse dies alternating after we stop seeing so many of these. That suggests someone with more time on their hands could check for relationships between overheated dies and these marks. The problem is that we have so few certain double reverse/single obverse doublestrikes that it would require a museum full of coins to get any meaningful data. This is a subject for a PhD candidate in numismatics probably yet to be born. We have many more pressing questions.

 

I collect both modern and ancient (and medieval, for those keeping score) and I do collect based upon grade. I am not an MS collector, nor am I a "you can't identify it" collector (though I do have a few of both). I like a coin that has been there, done that, and has a story to tell. Sadly, a story I will never know. Yet I still want that coin to have details that I can see, so I can appreciate the skill that it took to make that coin.

 

I read the article and asked my dealer about this issue, and he confirmed that the ruts around the obverse legend are not tooling. He thinks they're more likely to be a die shift during striking, but as the article notes, there is no conclusive proof of what caused the ruts.

For Doug's coin, high-magnification closeups could show that it's not tooling (since tooling leaves telltale indicators observable at high magnification) so I stand corrected on my opinion of tooling for this coin. Nice to learn something new.

 

That is the best part of hanging around places like coin clubs, coin shows and Coin Talk.

 

Ides, its pretty rare on the internet to see someone actually be willing to admit that they might be wrong. This is why I like Cointalk!

 

I've never had any respect for people who refuse to acknowledge when they're wrong or make a mistake.

The benefit of gaining knowledge and dispelling ignorance should far outweigh whatever temporary embarrassment (if any) a person feels when facts show that they're wrong. A person should always embrace the opportunity to correct a mistake and expand their understanding.

 

Well said.

 

Well done, and dead-on. Has been a Career mantra for me.