Here are two early-14th century medieval gigliato (grosso) coins of Robert of Anjou, king of Naples, also known as "Robert the Wise". What are your impressions? Which do you like more overall (if either), and which do you like best for the money (i.e., which seems the better value)? Coin A is in my watchlist and has been for some time. Though opinions may differ, I personally like this knd of toning and just think this is a really neat looking medieval coin. Recently I decided I might actually buy it the next time some funds came in from a coin sale, but I ended up buying something different. It is still under consideration for the future, however. Coin B is better struck and perhaps in a bit better grade. Unsurprisingly, it is more expensive. But it costs almost twice as much as Coin A. And at this $220-ish price point, there are many other things (medieval and otherwise) that would probably beckon to me more. (This is a moot point, presently, since do not have that kind of cash to sling around unless and until I sell something.) But I've added this one to the watchlist as well. ---------------------------- Coin A Attractive darker grey toning with contrast Cost = €95.00 ($111.77 USD at time of posting) King Robert looking serious and scowling sternly Coin B Better strike and arguably better grade Cost = €190.00 ($223.54 USD at time of posting) King Robert looking happy but perhaps drunk and buffoonish (aren't the quirks of medieval portraiture fun?)
Coin B for me. I like how the legend is clearer and the obverse seems to be in much better style even if they were of the same grade. ...also, what kind of pizza are we talking about?
We ordered Dominos. That's the only delivery option we have out here in the boondocks. Neither ladymarcovan nor I were in any mood to go out.
I would go for coin B, because I like that it is unclipped and that, as mentioned above, the strike is better. I think those reasons alone justify a doubling in price. I have one of Robert’s successors, Louis II, but it is unfortunately clipped. I actually have grown to appreciate it, as it’s a nice example representative of clipping. Better this coin than an English sterling. It does have nice toning though.
I like coin B but not sure if I would pay 2x vs coin A. Touch choice. If the $100 price jump isn't an issue for you, then B is the no brainer. If the extra $100 would be useful as part of your coin budget, then I don't know (how's that for decisiveness)
Yes, good point about the clipping. I did not really notice the difference here until I had both pictures together for comparison. The clipping on Coin A doesn't particularly bother me personally, but it is certainly an important detail I was late in noticing.
I like the toning and price of coin A. But coin B is the better buy, for all the reasons Miles said above.
Im saying coin A. I like B but atleast in the pics I like A more just for its contast. Coin B seems cleaned to me. Coin A though worn looks more original and heck think of the hands it passed through. Coin B doesnt quite have the story to tell IMHO.
The extra hundred or so bucks does make a big difference here, actually. North of $220 for Coin B puts it into a pricerange where there's a lot more other stuff (not one of these) that might be more appealing to me, whereas in the "just over $100" price range Coin A looks reasonably appealing against its similarly-priced competitors for my attention and budget. Therein lies the dilemma, if it's a dilemma at all. (Not a big one, because at this point it's a purely hypothetical discussion of stuff in my watchlist.)
you should look at the italian auctions on bidinside or deamoneta. coins of this type often sell for 50-70 euro.
@lordmarcovan I'm no expert but the sharpness of the edges on many of the devices on Coin A (especially on the reverse) give me pause for a coin that worn. My avatar coin is a Doppio Carlino of Clement VII, with dies engraved by Benvenuto Cellini. I posted about it here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-coins-of-benvenuto-cellini-not-ancient-but.309743/