A coin image on a computer screen need not bear any relation to its size in real life. If you think you know the size of the coin and don't pay attention to the seller's statement of its size you may be surprised when it arrives. I had a Byzantine coin of emperor Theophilus (829-842) and saw an auction coin of the same design that would have been an upgrade, so I put in a lowish bid. I won it (and some other coins, too, which amortized the shipping) and was pleased with the thought of the upgrade. Then it arrived. Surprise! It was only 23-22 mm (on the bottom) and the one I thought I was was upgrading is 28-27 mm (on the top)! The seller had not given a Sear number. The follis I had was Sear 1667. When I looked the new one up I saw Sear has a "half follis" of the same design as Sear 1668, described as "c. 20-24 mm. and 4-5 grams." (However, 5 of the 10 in DO are under 4 grams.) Mine is 23-22 mm and 3.89 grams-- clearly the smaller denomination. So, it is not an upgrade after all. It is a new type! I'm really pleased at my misunderstanding! Have you ever bought a coin that turned out to be a different size than you expected?
It might be smaller but it is a beautiful coin with great eye appeal, I would have that any day over the top one. Congrats on your mistake.....
I recently bought a celtic denarius that was listed as having a diameter of 20mm, which I was excited about as that is very large for celtic silver. When it arrived it was 14mm at best. That is a HUGE difference, I made a complaint to the dealer but so far have not taken them up on their offer to return it.
This coin of Faustina I was described as a sestertius in the auction in which it appeared. But it's actually a dupondius, as one can see by comparison with a sestertius. But I'm okay with that; the dupondius seems to be far more scarce than the sestertius version of this coin. I have been unable to find another example anywhere online.The British Museum does not have an example and it is not to be found at Wildwinds, OCRE, The Coin Project, coinscatalog.com, in the CNG archives or on a search at acsearchinfo. RIC lists it, but cites Cohen as the source.
This 1463 Firenze soldino arrived yesterday. I was expecting something along the size of a florin, but I got something the size of a hemidrachm.
My "double sestertius" of Postumus was advertised as a double because of the radiate crown - the seller's picture was giant. However when I received the coin it was only 10.7 grams, so in reality it might be a dupondius. I was fairly bummed out by this realization. And the lesson may be to only purchase coins where the diameter and weight are disclosed. Caveat Emptor.
..that still happens to me occasionally now, but it was often when i 1st started collecting ancients. with magnified images, not being familiar with the type coin and not having something of known size to compare it to in the pic can throw you off the size trail..
Nice dupondius size Postumus seem harder to find that the big ones. Most are either barbarous or very ratty looking. I had one years ago and traded it off not realizing I would have trouble 'upgrading' it. I have seen my coin offered for sale since but was not willing to pay the price. Live and learn.
I have had this happen with coronation medals, but I quickly learned to tell via die markers which size they were for the types I was interested in.
When I started collecting, I wanted Great Migration coins, being very much interested in the Dark Ages and the King Arthur sagas (as my CoinTalk name shows). The ones I bought turned out to be ugly, puny little coins. With this one I didn't realize it was so small until I opened the parcel. It put me off collecting since. I have five or six Migration coins still (but none of King Pellinore or his Questing Beast). Vandals, king Gunthamund (484-496). AE nummus, Carthage. Obv: Pseudo-legend, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Gunthamund right. Rev: cross within wreath. 10 mm, 0.79 gr. I bought it for a lot of money, also because of the fantastic Wagnerian name of the king. But it happens the other way round, too. Early in my coin-collecting career I was interested in Central Asian islamic coins, and I had some copper fulus of about 1000 AD. Then I saw this one, a bronze 'broad dirham', so, thinking it was maybe a bit larger than the usual 25 mm silver dirhams, I bought it (for 10 dollars). When it came in it turned to be a whopping 38 mm, as large as a silver dollar, but very thin: 4 grams only. And I think it's beautiful, softly gleaming black and red with its intricate calligraphy... AE dirham Qarakhanids, 'Imad al-Din Ulugh Akdash Chaghri, Benakath 602 AH = 1206 AD. 38 mm. Album 3425 ('RR'). Kochnev 1144.
Someone asked me to provide a scale for this coin. I was expecting something about 20mm in diameter (like the Venetian soldino on the left or the denarius below), but in reality it was 15mm. The obverse portrait is still extremely artistic and well-struck for such a small coin.
