I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what are others opinions on ICG grading and slabbing ancient coins? Does the 70 point grading scale fit in with the old coins, or is it rare that a coin will grade higher than AU? I know little about ancients, and I know slabbing is big with US coins, but have not heard much about this with the ancient guys/girls. Cameron Kiefer
Coins in the Agora and the Forum There are two distinct motivatiions for slabbing ancients. Most of them are encapsulated as genuine because a mass seller wants to provide to an unsophisticated market an example of ancient coins so the buyer can own one. I bought my first ancient from Littleton. A recognized name lowers the risk to the buyer. For those who want to own more than one, the certiification services are an introduction. Even so, for the collector who is otheriwse knowledgeable, certification and authentication can be important. I paid to have three coins certified. In the discussion thread here about Your Best Coin Buy, I refered to a Miletos Hekte I bought. I sent it to a dealer I know who teaches ancient history. I also showed it to J P Martin when he was manning the certification booth for the ANA way back then. I noted both of these Approvals on the flip. So, in that sense, I got outside, independent opinions. Previously, I had gone to the ANA and David Sear and would do so again. Going to ICG or ANACS is the same thing. It is true that the authentications are not what most active collectors of ancients want. In other words, the slabbing companies do not attach Sear or BMC or SNG numbers, do not identify magistrates, COS Years, etc. But the people paying for the mass service for mass marketing and their masses of buyers of "just one ancient" do not much care. The buyers are not sophicated. So, they own one Roman coin or one coin of Alexander. if they develop more interest, they get more sophisticated. And David Sear will provide you with very sophisticated authentication. His laminated write-ups are famous.
mbbiker asked: Why don't they want them slabbed? We learn to handle modern US coins, especially Mint State, a certain way and we put them in cointainers and flips and plastic boxes, so it is odd to realize that ancient coins get HANDLED. Don't drop it!! Silver gets as brittle as glass after 1000 or 2000 years... but you can handle an Owl or a denarius of the Roman empire. After 2000 years, there is not much you can do to it. They have hard, smooth or crusty surfaces. They have been touched by people from England to India from the Nile to the Rhine. You cannot touch the artifacts in a mueum, but you can touch your ancient coins. Most collectors do. There are many times when a fresh look at a different angle or lighitng will reveal a detail you did not see before and seeing the coin RAW is the only way to do that. An extra letter can help with the identification. An Owl weighs 17 grams: it is a 75-cent piece, the diameter of a quarter and three times as thick. it has a heft to it that modern coins do not. Remember that Theodore Roosevelt wanted three-dimensional coins with high relief. The US Mint could not do it. The Greeks did it with sledge hammers. The coins have depth and height you do not find on the the flat discs we got accustomed to. You can FEEL the depth, the height. True collectors of ancients do not want their coins slabbed. It is a fact. I have had some AUTHENTICATED, but NEVER NEVER NEVER encapsulated.
This is the oldest thread I could find on the ancient forum, I have decided to hijack it and make it mine!
I just noticed it was started by Cameron Kiefer. I knew him from CU and met him at a few shows over the years. I still wonder sometimes how his widow and child are doing.
I just found the oldest thread and posted to it, only after doing that did I realize who the OP was, made me sad.
Yuck, you weren't even kidding, they are using modern grades for ancient coins. What a joke! Shame on ICG for such disreputable practices. Tell me this, on an ancient coin with many different surviving die types, how do you compare the differences in the hand engraved dies for that type, plus the die wear, flan imperfections, difference in strike force, diffeeence in centering, to determine whether a particular ancient coin is MS-61 vs. MS-62 or MS-63? The fact is, you can't! They are pulling those grades out of their rear ends. And how do you determine a VF-40 vs an AU-50 on ancient coins with less than 30 or 40 surviving examples? That's right, you can't either. Shame on them. Look at this filth. What's next? MS-63+ or MS-63*? Or perhaps "First Strike" designation? While we are at it, why not assign a few "Proof" grades?
