GtG: NGC- Caracalla AR Denarius

Don't let her fool you, she actually does this stuff for a living but you can't tell her accent on the CT forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's not rare at all. It's one of the most common issues of Caracalla, actually.
RIC 195; BMCRE 44; Cohen 205; Hill 1324.

Lots of 'em right here.

 

... anyway ...

either way, I hope that you decide to stay
=> this place rocks (and you'll learn so much, so quickly!)

*edit*

 

I can think of a certain Canadian we could add to that list.

 

do you disagree for some reason?

 

Absolutely not little brother

 

Did anyone ever answer his question? I'd say MS 3/4 4/4 which is not all that high for a coin of this period when there were many well struck coins. You might find a die duplicate if you looked at a thousand coins or so. Common ancients were made from many dies and the dies were individually hand cut (not hubbed). A very small percentage of us bother with die identities and those are usually only interested in a few specific types for this study. Expecting to find a specific die of a common coin is a lot like collecting 2017 Lincolns by die except that, with ancients, you might actually know when you found a match.
Take my die ID quiz at the bottom of this page. I do not collect Caracalla very much but these coins are his father's.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/dielink.html

 

Like I said before, grading is subjective. So far as NGC is concerned, AU, XF (whatever) can all be boiled down to the lowest common denominator = BS.

 

You sure that is Caracalla, honestly it looks more like Elagabalus to me.

 

Pish, for a refresher check out Doug's page on distinguishing Caracalla from Elagabalus. With Imperials, going by portraits for these two can be unreliable.

On gregarious's coin, the reverse legend (although part of it is off flan) appears to be PONTIF TRP VIIII COS II, so it celebrates the awarding of his tribunician power for the ninth year. Elagabalus wasn't emperor that long, so it has to be Caracalla.

 

You mean Caracalla
Thanks for the link TIF, I had forgotten about that.

 

Yeah, I had a few typos/mistakes which have now been corrected

 

they were all 1st cousins on their mothers side

 

Not quite. Caracalla was Elagabalus' mother's first cousin. If you believe the official line according by Dio Cassius, Soaemias announced that Elagabalus was the son of her cousin Caracalla. Caracalla was 15 when Elagabalus was born (Soaemias was 23) so all we need is a DNA test now to be sure. The way I see this, it could be a misreading on her claiming that Caracalla adopted the boy and intended him as heir. Reverse adoptions were common. Remember Septimius made himself the son of Aurelius and brother of Commodus when it seemed appropriate. That is how Caracalla got his Marcus Aurelius Antoninus name since his grandfather was all of a sudden Marcus Aurelius. Had he not died c.215, Soaemias' husband had been on the fast track for promotion since the fall of Plautilla's father and quite possibly would have been emperor following Caracalla because of the army support he would have commanded that was not as strong for the 14 year old boy. Had Sextus Marcellus been alive, I doubt Macrinus would be a factor in history. Such wonderings are wandering from reality.

 

Since I was dealing with that wintry mess that fell on Long Island yesterday, I just caught this thread. Interesting and a bit spirited to say the least LOL

Naturally, I'm in agreement with the general concept that any assigned grade to an ancient coin is largely irrelevant and I will not pay more for a coin simply because it is slabbed..... I purchase coins and the history behind them, rather than what any 'grader' says it is---the acceptable cost and not the grade being the paramount factor. Of course, I prefer the 'prettiest' but I'm not always able or willing to expend that much cash to own it.

I suppose I instinctively assign a grade to the ancients I'm interested in, probably a habit picked up while compiling my formerly owned collection which consisted of about 75% modern/world and 25% ancient. I'm a 'conservative' grader and rarely agree with the grades assigned to coins, whether raw or slabbed, modern or ancient. But I believe @dougsmit has come up with the most appropriate 'grade' for the slabbed OP.

Anyway, welcome @heavycam.monstervam !! I hope you stick with 'ancients'. !!

 

ahh yes.. empirical family ties...

 

The slabs bring so much more because nice ancients are harder to find in slabs as the majority are raw. Also, many are addicted to having a slab for "authetication" and someone doing the "grading" for them. Many collectors "cannot afford to take a chance" on a raw coin, which is the problem with buying the coin before the book.

Before I took a plunge into European ancients, I did a month's worth of reasearch, comparing, studying fakes, and valuing before I bought my first serious European ancient. And I am still learning after seven months.

There is nothing wrong with buying a slabbed ancient. But paying more for one just because it is slabbed is the issue.

Unfortunately, varieties by die pairs for ancient coins are virtually meaningless unlike the overworked large cents and capped bust halves. Showing a rare die pair of an ancient coin to a collector/dealer is analogous to showing a rare die pair of a 2016 Lincoln Cent to a US collector/dealer. They won't care and there is no premium. Now, die pair studies are done for coins that are found in a hoard which is useful for authentication purposes, but for general collecting, this area is largely ignored.