How poor does a coin need to be before it's not good enough for you?

Excellent thread, as always, Martin!
I have the same Doug’s opinion.
In my collection, I probably have more F than VF, specially considering the LRB and the poor sestertii, that I purchased a lot of years ago, on the early days.
But rare coins that I will not be able to afford them in better conditions, naturally I do not care so much about the grade.
Here is an example. Very rare ruler (empress):

Aelia Zenonis. Augusta, AD 475-476. Æ (11mm, 0.75 g, 6h). Constantinople mint. Struck under Basiliscus, AD 476. Pearl-diademed and draped bust right / Zenonis monogram within wreath. RIC X 1018; LRBC 2287 corr. (monogram). Fair, dark brown patina.

Hey, Greg! I don’t have a Saloninus yet! I accept it in the next Saturnalia!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One can sometimes be lucky :



As to answer the OP question, when it comes to ancient in general, as I collect what appeals me, I tend to prefer coins in good condition, preferably of good style

It's of course a different story when it comes to the specialized series.
In the Dombes series (did I tell you about me collecting these ? ), so many of them have five or less examples known to exist, that finding one, in any condition is a wonder. As @dougsmit states, when a fair example is the only one or the best one known to exist, finding another one in a lifetime is unlikely. I would love this gold pistole to be in EF condition, but who cares, there's no other (so far, at least)


Louis II de Montpensier (1560-1582)
Pistole, or - 1579 - Atelier de Trévoux
+ LVDO . P . DOMBARVM . D . MONTISP Ecu de Bourbon couronné
+ DNS . ADIVTOR . ET . REDEM . MEVS . 1579 Croix feuillue
6.54 gr - 25-26 mm
Ref : Date inédite : Divo Dombes -, PA -, Mantellier -, Boudeau -, Sirand -

Q

 

For the CM
MYSIA, Pergamum Hadrian AE 30 Zeus standing

 

Great thread - I am especially impressed by the countermarks...here are 2 Tiberius-era countermarks I recently obtained:




In other ugly news, just this week I got a batch of five ancients from eBay for $0.99 (plus shipping). They are all pretty poor, with two of them being unidentifiable (the top 2 in the photo). The other three were types new to my collection and I am very pleased with them (the price goes a long way towards my pleasure - over-paying ruins it for me, for some reason). I spent hours tracking these down and had a blast, despite the ugliness.

Original seller's photo:


Saloninus (son of Gallienus) antoninianus:


Herod Agrippa prutah (despite the chip, not much lost, really):


Viminacium sestertius (?) of Volusian:

 

Is that a little Telesphoros countermark? If so, that's very cool!

 

Pretty low in some cases. If the coin is very rare, then condition is less of a factor. Sometimes the history behind a coin is the attractor, consider a drachm, for example, of Antinous.

 

Pretty low.

Domitian
AR Denarius, 2.97g
Rome mint, 88-89 AD
RIC 662 (R2). BMC - . RSC - .
Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIANVS AVG GERM P M TR P VIII; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP XVII COS XIIII CENS P P P; Minerva stg. l., with spear (M4)
Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection.

Rare with DOMITIANVS spelled out.

 

This coin is the best way to explain my standards.
Vitellius As,
Tarraco mint, Spain.

It wont win any awards for looks but does say VITELLIVS so I am more than happy to own it.

 

I’m not sure this counts, as I got it in a group lot. It’s a coin I want, but would like to upgrade it...

Byzantine Empire
Alexius I Comnenus, r. 1081-1118 A.D.
Thessalonica mint AE Tetarteron, 18.69 mm x 3.6 grams
Obv.: [TW KOMHN]. Crowned facing bust of Alexius, wearing loros, holding cross-tipped sceptre and cross on globe
Rev.: Jeweled cross with globe at each end, X in centre, on two steps, C Φ A Δ in the corners, clockwise from first quadrant
Ref.: SBCV, 1931

 

Although you folks are addressing this question from the perspective of ancients, I would add that some more "modern" coins can & do appear so pitifully poor and yet are still highly collectible. I'm specifically thinking of Cut & Countermarked coins of the Caribbean and Latin America (which coincidentally have been addressed in another discussion topic of this morning's Coin Talk e-mail.)

In early 1983 I was most fortunate to purchase a collection of coins from the scion of a family from Trinidad & Tobago who had been merchant traders since early in the 19th century. He & the family had agreed it was time to sell their collection/accumulation of coins they had put aside waaay back when they'd accepted such coins in the normal course of trading!

Just to give you a taste of the nature of such a collection, included among other items was an 1852 U.S. Assay Office of Gold $20, which as referenced above had been accepted in the course of day-to-day commerce. And to illustrate how poor the state of preservation was of some coins in this collection, there was a black dog of Nevis counterstamp on a Spanish Provinces of America 1•Real that was so damned worn thin that if it had been an item in the sand at my feet, I swear I might have not bent over to pick it up! It was identifiable as a basic type coin but without the detail of when and where it had been struck. But it still brought several hundred dollars from the collector who purchased it at that year's San Diego ANA… and he was darned pleased to get it!

[BTW, as a personal preference, I do not identify such coins as Spanish Colonial. Instead, I use the acronym SPoA, as unlike the British & French, the Spanish did not have "colonies" but rather, overseas provinces! Therefore, SPoA! Ironically, the French finally got to this perspective as well in the 20th century as they now refer to their former overseas colonies as Overseas Departments!]

 

RARE, genuine, and great provenance (Arthur Sackler)


Broken, but genuine and cheap.



Broken, but who can say no to a genuine Hollow-Handle spade for $50?



Has a small crack and casting hole, but it is authentic and was relatively cheap.



Two broken pieces of two different coins. But they represent genuine examples af a rare coin. Total invested is around $75.



Extremely rare Boshan knife. It had been broken and repaired twice. But it was relatively cheap and was available. The cheapest similar examples I’ve seen are 3x more expensive.



Worn, but extremely rare and have an important relationship with the Dang Jin spades.



Lots of RARE early round coins. No regrets with this $20 purchase.

 

Don’t get me started on “rare” varieties in early US coins. Low-grade examples can bring oodles of money.

 

V ery poor 666 Nero

 

My recently posted Nero would need a pretty poor-sighted mother to love it.

 

Below pictured my best example, and the world's third best known example, of a Roman Republican sextans with dolphin, Crawford series 160. I gave this coin to a friend but I hope to find another some day though perhaps not in as good condition.

 

Well said RC.

 

I appreciate this question from Martin. He is a specialist who really studies detail in coins. I am sure he will resonate to what I want to say for myself.

I need to preface my comment by observing that I am no longer a beginning collector searching for a collecting rationale. My collection has evolved as a diverse assemblage with numerous subcollections devoted to different things. They vary not only by topic, but also approach. I say I don't collect Greek, but I do have specialized collections of Olbian dolphins, countermarked Persian sigloi, eagle and dolphin coins of Istros, and I cast longing eyes at the lion fractionals of Chersonesos (for the reverses). Those collections vary from a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred examples, and they do not have a uniform code of acceptability.

Here are a couple of dolphins, collected for shape and size, that might leave you shaking your head:


Pretty much the same can be said of my collection of Roman provincials, for which the standard tends to be a bit higher in general than the Olbian pieces, but probably not as high as for the Greek silver. For Roman imperial I collect only silver through the third century and mainly bronze thereafter. For that my standards are highest. But why?

I do not have a one-size-fits-all standard of acceptability. How far down in grade is acceptable depends entirely upon how I want/need/expect the coin to function in my collection. An illustrative example came up in another thread. I have nearly 20 denarii of Julia Paula, but this coin I do not own:

This coin has a good portrait with little wear and is mostly well struck except for a bit of striking flatness at the base of the obverse portrait and top of the reverse. If all I wanted was an affordable example of one of the coins of Julia Paula that portrays her well, this would fill the bill nicely. But my interest in this coin centered on a feature that was made obscure by the striking defect. Participants in that thread convinced me that I am better off without that coin. In that they reminded me of one of the main principles that guide all of my collecting of ancients:

When condition prevents me from a clear look at the details that matter to me, details which mean something to my collection, then I will pass on the coin, irrespective of price.

 

My minimum condition is basically "identifiable" which this bronze is a good example of. It's not pretty and it's not one where I can say my photo's horrible and it's better in-hand, but I was excited to add it to my collection because it's a rare type I might not otherwise find and because it is the produce of an important change in the Roman Monetary system. This coin is a very rare Crawfkrd 41/6e semis. Most of the semisses of the Crawford 41 series are cast(aes grave) bronzes but a small number of struck examples made at a similar weight standard are known. This particular example is a bit lighter than most but is a die match to other heavier pieces. This is an important type because it represents that change in the Roman Monetary system from the earlier cast bronzes to the struck bronzes that would be used for the rest of Roman history.


Roman Republic Æ Semis(18.688g, 30mm). Anonymous post-semilibral series, 215-212 BC. Rome mint. Laureate head of Saturn right, S behind/Prow of galley right, S above, ROMA below. Russo Essays Hersh p. 140, 2 and pl. 16, 10 (same dies); McCabe Anonymous A1.Sm.2; cf. Crawford 41/6e; Sydenham -; Russo RBW 123-124.

 

Pretty low.
I actually prefer low grade coins to high ones . Why ,you may ask?

1. The more worn it is, the less likely its a modern fake. possible, but still less likely. counterfeiters will usually not put all that effort into making a fake for so little profit.

2. Low grade coins are way cheaper

3.A low grade coin is still a piece of history- no different than a high grade coin.

I feel sorry for the people who blow thousands of dollars on new coins, taking such a big risk . The Toronto Group preys on thousands of suckers like that.

Still I need coins where the bust is visible under the naked eye or magnifying glass.

A full Legend would be nice but it isnt a deal breaker as long as the ID can still be made without it. I dont mean a cull, but pretty worn.