I have recently see some unpublished and/or rare denominations (e.g., Denarii) from the Roman Imperial “Times of Turmoil” centered around Gallienus. My questions include: how unusual is it to find unpublished coins from this period and how do you determine value for a, presumably, unique coin - admittedly from a time and emperor most collectors may ignore?
Good question- there is a great article floating around this forum that really addresses the rarity and value issue in ancients. I will look for it but others here probably could post it quicker. Here is one of these "unique" types you are talking about. Just watch and see if anyone is interested. You have to really want a coin or have a lot of money to spend that much on a coin. Resale might be very difficult and appreciation probably small over the years.https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/ro...d__unique_obverse_variant/631998/Default.aspx
Here is that great article by Warren Esty on rarity and value:http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/rarity.html
Nothing that is covered by RIC volume V is really unlisted just because it is not in RIC. That volume is so out of date that not being there is almost normal. The same goes for certain other periods like the Eastern Severans. To be unlisted, a coin needs to be missing from not only the big standard works but also a pile of smaller, specialized studies that vary from period to period. Another question is whether you call a coin unlisted because of a really minor point. We currently have a thread on variations on the types with captives seated under a trophy of arms. Do you want to pay extra for a coin that differs from the listed variations by which captive is bound and which is holding his head in hand? Specialists care. Most collectors don't.
Given the misspelling in the obverse legend on that Gallienus piece (in Mike's first post above), coupled with its unlisted status overall, chances are it was an unofficial ancient hybrid. Many such are listed and described in the BMC catalog for Roman Imperial. RIC, not so much. Before I started counting off the big bills, I would want to lay that to rest. On the other hand, new discoveries of coins that fill a blank spot in the catalog, where the features of the coin could be predicted, these are an entirely different matter. Not all "new discoveries" are created equal.
If this coin is the one you are considering, I would pass. Of course I am a Roman Republican coin collector, so my pass is not surprising. I do not consider lettering issues to make an ancient coin different enough to collect. It looks like the linked coin has the centering dots for letters on the obverse and the seller called the coin rare for having I instead of V. I think the celator might have had a bad day and missed the letter. If you want a coin of Gallienus, buy the best example you can find and pocket money (or spend it on other coins). @Sallent is a Gallienus lover, his thoughts might be better.
LOL, I do have Gallienus though I would not consider myself a Gallienus lover. Must be confusing me with someone else. I will say this, many of the reference books we use today were printed 30 to 60 years ago. In that time tons of new hoards have been found, especially thanks to metal detectorists. What may be listed as a rare coin in one of those old catalogs may now be common, and an unlisted coin may not necesarily be rare these days either thanks to new finds. Even if an unlisted coin is rare, it does not mean you should pay lots of money. Many dealers will take an unlisted coin and jack up the price hundreds of dollars just because the coin is unlisted. However, it may be a more common coin these days due to recent finds, so just because it is not listed in a 60 year old book doesnt mean you should pay bick bucks for it. Also, less popular emperors like Gallienus will not have as many specialists as more popular emperors like Hadrian or Trajan. Therefore, if you pay big bucks for that unlisted Gallierus coin (even if it is indeed rare), good luck finding another specialist willing to pay hundreds of bucks for it. 99.99% of collectors will probably prefer to knock out Gallienus with one or two $25 or $30 coins. I think you will have a hard time ever getting your money back. Dealers can afford to price those coins super high because they have volume sales, so they can wait 20 years for someone to show up willing to pay that either out of naivete and ignorance, or because they want it bad enough. But you are not a dealer, so can you afford to pay that much for a coin you may never get your money back on? Only you can answer that.
I really like my volumes of BMCRE but before buying them everyone needs to know a couple things. 1. BMC is a list of coins in the British Museum. They mention a few coins they don't have but the purpose of the book is to catalog what they do. If they have ten examples of the same type, there will be ten numbers that seem the same possibly separated by letter spacing or just by weights. 2. BMC has 6 volumes covering the Empire ONLY through 238 AD. If your interest falls after Balbinus and Pupienus------tough. I bought this ugly Gallienus mess because it was a denarius and I did not have one. I now wish I had not. For the same cash, I could have had several good looking antoniniani which would be common but not ugly.
And then there rarities that you don't have to be a specialist to appreciate, like this Gallienus below (not mine): "Apparently unique and unpublished" when it was auctioned in March this year, it hammered for £7000 before fees on an estimate of £2000. It was only "unique" until September, when another example came onto the market and also sold for £7000. I wonder how many have to show up before they come into my price bracket. Of course, by that time you probably wouldn't be able to consider them rare anymore...
I do too. Before the new RIC II.1 was published in 2007, BMCRE II was my primary reference for Flavian coins. Even today, I use it hand and hand with the new RIC II. Seeing a large published collection such as the BM gives one a good perspective about what is rare and what is not. Plus, much of what Mattingly wrote nearly 100 years ago holds up pretty well today.
I'd be very weary whenever someone calls a coin "unique," especially when this description comes from a dealer. Take the Vcoins denarius of Gallienus. How can you be sure that the obverse die did not clog up at some point early in its usage? The fact that the two dies were carved by different celators is also apparent. And if it is a mistake in the die, how rare are these mistakes in roman coins?
Just to be clear I was not considering a denarius with possible mint engraving error. I was considering a denarius that is considered rare as a denomination for the emperor Claudius II Gothicus.
These are the known denarii of Claudius Gothicus: http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/search/adv...scription=&Note=&Reference=&page=1&mod=result They are all rare and very rare types. The exact number of known specs of each type is impossible to reckon exactly. How many are still in unpublished private collections or museum storages around the world?
Just a bit off topic, I like your CT handle. I just finished a book about the Varangian Guard. Very interesting. Now, back on topic.
Took that picture in the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo past summer during a visit to family roots. I love the connection between the Vikings and the Roman (albeit Eastern) Empire.
