I recently posted a thread about my new Titus Pax sestertius https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fine-style-can-overcome-almost-anything.331405/ Although the coin is in very fine style it's also somewhat worn. The discussion in the thread raised some questions about style versus condition. So, I am curious to know what folks on CT prefer. Personally, I'm a sucker for an F or VF in superb style over an EF coin in average style. However, there is no right or wrong answer! A Titus denarius in average condition and fine style. Give me one of these any day! Titus AR Denarius, 3.35g Rome Mint, 80 AD RIC 123 (C). BMC 60. RSC 311. Obv: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M; Head of Titus, laureate, bearded, l. Rev: TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P; Seat, draped; above, semicircular frame with three crescents Ex Harry N. Sneh Collection.
I would generalise to say specialists will prefer style while others will prefer condition. Reason being it will take a specialist to recognise what is considered fine style for a particular issue. Condition however is usually quite obvious to everyone and non-subjective... the absence of circulation wear for example.
My sense is that condition is a bigger influence upon price than style. Maybe that would change with high-end coins. But I think it takes a trained eye to appreciate fine style, and most collectors do not have that eye. But they can tell rough surfaces from smooth ones. Perhaps it’s an indictment of my own eye that I chose condition in the poll above. Even so, my limited budget means I have to buy some coins in minimally acceptable grades. I’m trying to be more selective as a collector, but that’s a work in progress. EDIT: It appears that Richard above beat me to these comments. What he said.
For me, there are other considerations that often take precedence over style OR condition: scarcity and historical interest. There are some coins that are so difficult to come by that when they come up at auction, you'd better get them because you may not have another opportunity for some years and style and condition don't matter. With some Roman provincial issues, they are rendered so unartistically that there's no such thing as "fine style" to take into consideration and it comes down to scarcity or condition. Some coins have so much historical interest that condition and style are secondary considerations. But that's evading the question, which is limited to style vs. condition. I've seen some high-grade but ugly tribute pennies in my day, where the emperor looks wizened and emaciated. But my avatar coin has a lovely portrait, even though it's VF and off-center. That's why I answered "style."
I agree with all of these but hasten to point out that price is not what I consider to be a god reflection of the value of a coin. It tells us how many people with money to spend want to spend it on that coin. Since those with money outnumber those who understand style, condition drives price. There is a matter of style that can not be defined by 'fine' and 'poor'. Specialists often care for a style that may be less than 'fine' over a better one because it tells something about the coin (e.g. the mint that struck it). Below are two coins that seem similar but one is rare because it's style assigns it to the mint at Alexandria while the other is common and from the Rome mint. Condition would keep either from selling to people who require perfect coins and neither is what one might call fine style. Specialists would see the coins as different in a significant way. Now a test: Which of the above two coins more closely matches the style of the coin below? Do not consider legends or condition.... just style. Is one better...finer... or just different?
(Ref: OP’s Poll) I don’t understand the differentiation. I just buy coins that I like. Added via Edit …………… in accordance with my collecting criteria: reasonably well centered strike; legible (and as complete as possible) inscriptions; association with historical events that interest me.
As for Doug’s test, I’m going to say that the very top coin matches the style of the very bottom. I’m not sure how to explain what I see. There seems to be greater “texture“ to the die engraving; there seems to be a higher relief involved for the top and bottom coins, but maybe the second coin simply shows more wear. Did I win? I’m guessing probably not.
Style for me. I've seen some pretty unattractive high grade coins but some worn coins that just pop. A well struck coin with good artistry can hold up very well with some wear.
Perhaps consider the question this way: Theoritically there are two coins of the same type that meet all your above criteria - one is in fine style F or VF, the other is EF but of average style. Which one would you prefer?
I am stylistically challenged, David - I just know when I like a coin and then I purchase it. I love those grading assessments that read “F/VF”, “almost extremely fine” (why not “fine+” ?), etc.
I have a fourth. Cost. If it’s high grade, great, if it’s fine style, great. But so long as I got a great deal on it compared to the going rate for similar, even better. That’s why so many of my coins are rough to some and some are surprisingly in great shape.
Admittedly, style is somewhat subjective. If I was to list the criteria I look for in a coin in order it would probably go something like this: 1. Historical/Numismatic interest 2. Style 3. Condition Of course this would assume the coin in question is affordable!
Condition is the easiest to apprehend : with a bit of experience, telling a F/VF from an EF will become more obvious most of the time Style, well, to each their own, and something one will find of good style, the other will not Condition is a coin criteria (more or less), while style depends on the person When I can afford it, I vote for both, otherwise I vote ...for both Q
I have no idea, I'm still trying to establish what my preferences are in any exact sense. I had thought that a clear legend was of great importance, but then found myself buying a coin with most of the legend erased. I suppose that puts me on the style side of the poll.
My priority, which varies depending on the coin, is roughly: 1. History 2. Artistry (fine style for the type and generally "beautiful") 3. Detail (I generally try to avoid < VF) 4. Minimal marks/scrapes/etc. 5. Centering/Strike 6. Overall eye appeal (I recognize toning is impermanent but it does add appeal) There have been some comments recently about the importance of centering and strike. I definitely agree but I am willing to put up with a fair amount of imperfect centering versus an inferior styled coin. As an example, I paid a strong price for this coin in the most recent Triton sale because it ticks all of my boxes except for complete centering. It's a common type and others might pass immediately because of the centering but based purely on my personal criteria, it's one of the nicest ones I've seen and one I was happy to purchase: BRUTTIUM, Kroton. Circa 400-325 BC. AR Nomos (20mm, 7.70 g, 11h). Head of Apollo right, wearing laurel wreath; KPOTΩNIA-TAΣ around / The Herakliskos Drakonopnigon: the Infant Herakles, nude, crouching facing on rock, head left, strangling a serpent in each hand. Attianese 163 (this coin illustrated and enlarged); HN Italy 2157; SNG ANS 386 (same dies); SNG Lloyd 617–8; Basel 199; Dewing 513; Gulbenkian 132–3; Jameson 433–4; Kraay & Hirmer 271; de Luynes 735 (same dies). EF, light iridescent tone, slightly off center. Fine style. From the Gasvoda Collection, purchased from Numismatica Ars Classica. Ex Gorny & Mosch 219 (10 March 2014), lot 19; Giessener Münzhandlung 55 (14 May 1991), lot 30.