For those that haven't read this link, I'm going to violate the owner's copyright and post an image of his coin here: He mortgaged his house to buy this coin in 1995. I'm sure he's pleased with his decision. This is by far the finest example of this coin that I could find.
I have never come across a coin where I would want to mortgage my house for it, but that coin is definitely very nice. I still would rather have the house.
Here is my budget version AGRIPPINA M F MAT C CAESARIS AVGVSTI - Draped bust of Agrippina Senior right, her hair waved and fastened in long plaid down the back of her neck / S P Q R MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE - Carpentum drawn left by two mules, the hood supported by statues of standing female figures, one at each corner, the side panel decorated with dancing figures surmounted by stars, the wheels with six spokes. Sestertius, Rome 37-41 34,32 mm / 25,03 gr RIC (Caligula) 55, BMCRE (Caligula) 81-5 and pl. 30,5 (same reverse die), CBN (Caligula) 128-31 and pl. XVIII, Cohen 1, Sear 1827
Here's my budget Agrippina sestertius but with SC reverse. Agrippina Orichalcum Sestertius AGRIPPINA M F GERMANICI CAESARIS Draped bust of Agrippina right TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG GERM P M TR P IMP P P around large SC Rome circa 42 AD Issued by Claudius 27.07g RIC 102; C. 3; BMC 219. Ex-Londinium
Very nice coin. I’m still searching for a decent Agrippina for my portrait series. On a side-note, if you need to borrow money to buy coins (including getting into credit card debt or lay-away arrangements), you have a serious problem that could get you into serious financial trouble.
I wonder if the coin could be sold today for at least the same price including the interest that might have accrued for the past 17 years? I would ask the current owner if it was worth it.
The owner does acknowledge the potential for financial danger, and calls his an “embarrassing story of total irresponsible action of any human being to mortgage to acquire a coin.” His prose style is a bit idiosyncratic; he does seem to suggest that it was a bit of a foolish move, but he doesn’t sound like he regrets it. It really is a breathtaking work of art.
Not knowing what he paid in 1995, I would speculate that he could sell the coin for at least 10X what he paid 23 years ago. Here's my thinking: This Agrippina is demonstrably superior to any other coin sold of its type, the last of which sold for around $100K (not including buyer's fees) at NAC's Nov. 2013 auction. My observation is that coins that are "the best of their type" sell for multiples of the "second best of their type." An example: This Caligula ADLOCVT sestertius went for $635K at NAC's Oct. 2014 auction: My own Caligula ADLOCVT sestertius went for $35K in NAC's March 2010 auction: The first coin is pretty much the best of its type. My coin was purchased four years earlier but even in 2014 would not have sold for anywhere near the first coin's price. There is, at a minimum, a 5X - 10X premium for the first coin, even though my coin is among the best you'll find if you do a search. But it's not the best. As for inflation: $1.00 in 1995 is worth $1.65 today, adjusted for inflation. Not much of a rise. I wouldn't be surprised if the Agrippina coin could sell for well over $500K at an NAC auction. In 1995, I would bet that he paid under $100K, and more likely less than $50K. Hence my conclusion about a 5X - 10X increase in value.
Wow, anyone know of any die-matches to that coin I can trade a liver for? Amazing detail. That celator either had an Optivisor or eagle vision.
That's the finest Agrippina sestertius I have ever seen. Of course, it's out of my price range, but I know the feeling. Many years ago I fell in love with this one and had to have it. It's one of the most treasured items in my collection:
Julius, i remember a while back you were going to go to collectors anonymous cause you were having similar troubles..
For the benefit of my understanding, can you explain why the first coin is better than yours? I very much prefer yours - with its lovely green patina and detail. Does the first coin even have a patina?
I'd love to have either of them, but one is better than the other. Take a look at the fine details like the soldiers shields, faces, helmets. Caligula's features and hair. The first coin is much sharper. Its also more centered and evenly struck. Not all ancient coins develop patina either. It depends how they were buried or stored, the condition of the soil or pot. That's why we have so many different colors of patina and thicknesses. They're both outstanding, but the first one is just that much better. To me it's academic....I can't afford either of them!
