Opened: a 40 year old 'slab'

I skipped it because I had one. Few of these win beauty contests.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess that's Byzantines for you, but that's part of their charm. Even after looking up the Basil coin I had to squint to make out the reverse, but I'm definitely happy with the purchase. Hopefully it'll clean up and make me even happier with the purchase.

I almost picked up the BD'd Gallienus too--it looks like there's a pretty decent coin under all that fuzz. Looks like someone grabbed it this morning.

 

For the record, the Basil is a cast that is supposed to be a cast and that never does much for detail. I've seen worse. There are several Cherson mint types that were produced by casting so we have to allow when setting our expectations.

 

Then this also checks off the genuine cast off my checklist! This keeps getting better and better.

I was reading up on the coin, and this site has a struck contemporary imitation, which is a pretty interesting meeting of circumstances: http://esty.ancients.info/Cherson/BasilI.html

 

After it was delivered to the Nashville post office 5 times, I finally got mine

\(^_^)/

 

congrats ... it's very cool (glad it arrived ... late, but safe)

 

Thanks ^_^

 

I'm late to this conversation, but what a cool certificate from David Sear!

 

A test: I did not want another of these which Sear IDed as RIC 20 but I probably would have bought another had it been the RIC 26 (2nd below) even though I have repeatedly said that was not a good reason to be impressed by a coin. Why? If someone were to offer you one of the coins below, which would you prefer? Why? Who admits to being a flyspecker and who thinks it is silly? I see a reason that I prefer the second which may also be silly but it is the reason I kept both of these coins. Anyone?

 

Is it six rows of bricks vs. seven?

 

The dots?

 

Well, they both have unusual portraits, but both portraits are desirable. The small headed portraits would be a reason I would go for one of these, but to be honest I like the first better. Don't listen to my rambling cause I really have no idea what would make one of the two special to you.

 

i think throughout my whole collection i might own 6-8 ancient coins

 

Hey kaos, that's awesome ...

=> ummm, but wow ... I wanna see 'em!!

 

I'd have to go digging for them here's 3 the other few are locked away

Sent from my C6740N using Tapatalk

 

I don't do ancient Roman at all... It's a rare thing I pick up one at all these where Xmas gifts I'm great full for the cool gifts I know the others are NGC certified

Sent from my C6740N using Tapatalk

 

well played => hey, thanks for the coin-effort

cheers

 

Finally home and catching up with CoinTalk

Here's one of the two I bought from the same seller. This February 1978 certificate is ~14 months newer than the ones shown by Doug and Randy. Note the added disclaimer:

"Unless a photograph is supplied with this Certificate the signatory cannot guarantee that the information given here relates to the accompanying coin."

I wonder if this addition was necessary because Sear got wind of resellers engaging in the ol' bait & switch.

Given the ubiquity of this Constantine I campgate, I'd be surprised if it were the victim of such shenanigans.


Constantine I follis, /campgate; RIC VII Trier 449

Sear's attribution is of course correct:

 

To answer an earlier question, David Sear is 75 this year.

 

Fantastic addition, TIF ... congrats to all of you guys that scored these Sear certificates (they're very cool)