A Roman Republic sextans from the Luceria mint

Thank you. I have looked through several old auction catalogs including the large collection in Vecchi 3 but am probably being fooled by the overstrike. One thing that becomes striking is the poor appearance of so many AE coins offered in big sales (Triton I has several) when the silver Republicans seem to be available in super grades.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think this is why there is such a disparity in the number of collectors of the two. Enough money and time can buy you gEF examples of most Roman Republican silver but you can't do the same when it comes to the bronze. You could build a nice collection, but I doubt even with unlimited funds one could find high grade problem-free examples of more than 10% of types, and many of the most interesting types like the 56/1 dupondius always come scrappy, so most collectors largely ignore them.

One good(or bad) thing about this is that collectors of these types are few and far between and at the moment the number of collectors seems to be at a low point, so many interesting and rare examples can be bought today for less than the prices they realized in the major sales of the past like Triton I and the other Goodman sales, for instance.

 

I agree red_spork I notice it is hard to find early RR AE in good condition and unfortunately I prefer them to silver, being larger in size, my guess is although more were minted they did not last through time as well as silver so technically are a lot rarer than AR so I also wonder why people pay more for silver.

 

Uhm, because silver is so cool? There are a lot of rare and scarce silver issues in the Roman Republic. Some of the common RR denarii can go for as little as $125 in vf, but once you get into scarcer and scarcer issues, lookout, prices shoot up exponentially.

 

Don't get me wrong I like silver as well especially the RR denarius that has architecture that was not replicated an AE issues like Curia Julia and Villa Publica but I love the detail on the large Sestertius and As.

 

I bought around a half dozen RR AE duplicates out of the RBW collection. Most were acquired by him in the late 80s or early 90s, and I paid less than he did for most of them.

I have seen over the course of the last couples years a handful of serious RR AE collectors sell their collection, RBW, McCabe, etc. I get the sense that in a market this thin, the loss of a few major buyers really drives the price down.

 

Have any of the RR experts addressed how the coins came to be so varied in workmanship? We are told that moneyers could select designs that honored their ancestors but it also seems that they hired teams of contractors to do the actual production with some using amateur help compared to others. How is it, for example, that the goat biga coins of C. Renius are so regularly on small flans with poor centering while the Medusa/four horses of the sun of Plautius Plancus so often are flatly struck? We realize that bronzes circulated a lot but some of the issues are certainly ragged enough that it appears no one at the mint cared while others are more regularly round and professional.

If you have a serious interest in getting a large collection of really 'special' coins in a specialty (not just the EF+ coins that populate big sales) just get the word out that you buy without questioning details like price and condition saving dealers the hassle of cataloging and searching for buyers who want a 'deal'. If I had really wanted a large collection of Eastern Severus denarii, I could have made it clear that I'd pay $50 for $20 coins and expect to receive bags every month. I doubt RBW carried a list at shows like I do trying to be sure he didn't buy things he already had.

 

I believe some of the coins I purchased were from these types of transactions, but some of them are also out of auctions, which provide a little better sense of the market.

 

I have Ancient coinage in Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Lead.

In moderns, I have several other metals, but I focus mainly on gold.

For Ancients, I used to stipulate my focus on Silver. It seemed the "best" way, as you did not have to worry about BD, it seemed "safe", and "everyone else" did that. As I gained more knowledge and confidence, and my enjoyment in historical ties with selecting coins; I have found that the fabric is not as important than the historical significance in why the coin was struck.

I maintain coins were invented and struck for the facilitation of trade. Eventually, art and beauty crept into the design (that is cool), and later, leaders began to use the designs to communicate to the population (great events, pride in their city, their likeness, religions, their heirs, victories, etc...propogandas). Coins were struck in mass quantities as they needed to go out to all the population to facilitate trade and commerce; as well as to make state to state payments (tribute, etc.)

Some recent Modern coin "self-styled learning experts", (concerned with machine made coins having to have high rating numbers on slabbed coins), have tried to say coins are ONLY collected for beauty, and that you need to get the best design and strike. Bah. That is not MY hobby.

I have found that several of my bronze coins have been some of the more rare coins, and have been attached to some of the great historical hinge points. That has been a extremely satisfying change in my collection. This is also true with my Ancient Silvers too.

 

I'm not sure how he bought coins at shows, but he was certainly cognizant of what he had when it came to auctions. My copy of CNG 43 is from RBW's library and has all kinds of annotations like the one below that I scanned because I now own the coin it refers to:


From what I can tell, the H1(F) refers to "I have 1 in Fine condition". Some have annotations such as "better centered", "need", "var?", etc. He bid on quite a few lots in the sale but the ones he didn't tended to be one where his notes indicated he had an equal or better example. One of these days I intend to reach out to CNG to see if they'd allow me to scan and upload the entire RR section of the catalog because the notes are an interesting view into how a big name collector formed his collection.

 

I have quite a few of RBW's library auction catalogues and I greatly enjoy running across his notes. One of these days I'll post a compilation of neat things that are hiding in my library from his collecting days. I've got correspondence, bid forms, invoices, and of course, all sorts of notes. I only corresponded with a him a few times before he died, but he told me that he left all of that stuff in there for future collectors to enjoy...like Easter Eggs.

One thing I find surprising is the frequency with which he corrects incorrect references in the lot descriptions. I don't know whether he was going through each lot with a copy of Crawford and Sydenham at the ready or if he was some sort of brilliant mind that new this stuff by memory. Many of them aren't lots he appeared to even bid on; he was just working through the catalogue. I don't have any Crawford numbers committed to memory and I obsess over coins all day long!

 

Bumping this to let @dougsmit know that I checked Berger's Kushner-Hannover Museum catalogue and did not find a very good match. I will check RBW Collection when I have some time. For what it's worth, having now examined your photo on a full screen, I agree with @red_spork that the obverse is likely Minerva or Roma with some damage to the helmet area, either from overstriking or otherwise. I think the bumpy areas above and behind the head are remnants of either crest (most likely) or value mark pellets or an undertype. I'm having most trouble with the modeling of the neck (lines), which is atypical.