Which is More Important?

That's a real great coin, AncientJoe. Can you add a description? On the reverse, that must be the infant Heracles killing two snakes. I can read 'Krotonia', Crotone I suppose. Is it 4th century BC? What a perfect style.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks! I've updated my post with the description now.

 

As threads tend to do, this left the original question and wandered away. No one said that history and price are not important considerations. The question was whether, all else being equal, style or condition made more difference to us. More said the like style. Sale results suggest the opposite. That may be because the average CT participant is not the average collector but, as a group, is aware of more considerations than VF versus MS. Relatively few here are primarily interested in the cash value and investment potential of coins. More of us realize that we won't be repaid at a living wage for all the time we spend learning, for all the books we buy or for the mistakes we make along the way. We attract many people who have become just a bit bored with their previous coin hobby and are looking for a bit more complexity.

I respect AJ greatly and love to look at his wonderful coins but my take on the hobby is almost exactly the opposite from his order. I value most coins as having history and tend not to go for the ones covered better by surviving writers than those whose history requires digging. That eliminates his #1 from my hobby. I see #2 beauty and #6 eye appeal as closely related and probably put more emphasis in his words "for the type" than many people. We definitely reverse #3 and #5 since I prefer detail lost to wear to detail never on the flan due to centering. #4 marks and scrapes also bother me less than details lost to centering as long as the seller is more offended by the faults than I am and prices accordingly. I love test cuts and dislike scrapes from overly zealous metal detectorist shovels. The one thing AJ did not cover is my #1 of #1 attractions. I love coins that teach me something and demonstrate some technical factor of coin production or mint operation. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I like coins that have a lot to say even if they have faces only a mother could love. The wonderful part of the hobby is there are plenty of coins for each of us. I do not want AJ's competition for the coins I want. For that matter, I wish all of you would go over to collecting only boring baubles with MS labels so I could have more of those junky F-VF coins I love.

 

I totally agree. One of the best times I ever had with a coin was the weekend I spent researching a counter marked Vespasian denarius. It was quite thrilling to explore an area of numismatics I was totally unfamiliar with.

I know how much I paid for the coin. The amount of enjoyment I've gotten out of it is priceless.

 

@AncientJoe beat me to the punch mentioning eye appeal, which is really my main reason for selecting coins. It is of course a highly subjective concept as what appeals to some does not to others. Condition means very little to me except to say that I prefer my coins rather worn. Most of my coins are VF and below, with a smattering of EF's that just happened to be that grade but also had the eye appeal. I never know what I might be looking for until I see it. Knowing my monetary limitations I do not have a list but instead let the coins 'come to me'. I picked two examples below from my collection which show what is 'eye appeal' to me, but still rather worn and would not appeal to probably the average collector.

 

Perhaps I see what you mean about the top coin. But that Julian looks pretty great, and I suspect novice collectors would see the appeal. And who doesn't like a one-eyed bull?

 

Probably style and historical interest over condition. I'm not buying slabbed mint-state U.S. or world coins where condition (and errors) is everything. In fact, nothing could be more boring than buying coins based solely on condition, which is what some collectors do.

 

An interesting thread - I like hearing what makes other collectors tick. I'm definitely a style over condition collector - with my budget I don't have much choice, but even with more moola I think I'd be fishing in the F-VF waters rather than Unc.

I am a real fan of a pretty toning or patina - even if the coin is quite worn. This Lucilla sestertius is one of my favorites, if only because of its green patina:



Things that do not bother me that probably should:

Off-center strikes - I have no interest in modern error coins, but for inexplicable reasons I like off-center ancients. This RR denarius isn't going to win any popularity contests - but I really like it (the banker's marks help).



Countermarks, banker's marks and test cuts - probably stemming from my chop mark collection of many years, I really like these obvious signs of commerce.

I'll put up with a lot of ugly for an interesting countermark - here I Antoninus Pius countermarked on Antoninus Pius:



Antoninus Pius Æ 25
Yr. 190 (142-143 A.D.)
Syria, Laodicea ad Mare
ΑVΤΟ ΚΑ ΤΙ ΑΙ ΑΔΡ ΑΝΤΩΝЄΙΝΟΝ СЄ ЄV, laureate, draped, cuir. bust left / ΙΟVΛΙЄΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚЄΩΝ ΚPA ϞΡ, turreted bust of Tyche left.
RPC 8586 temp.; Mionnet 753.
Countermark: A. Pius in oval.
Howgego 113.
(8.11 g. / 25 mm)

 

Me too, @Marsyas Mike - I love countermarked coins. Here are some of mine:

IMITATIVE CLAUDIUS SPES SESTERTIUS WITH DEVALUATION COUNTERMARK


Pangeri 85d, (30mm, 15.2gm)
Countermarked DV (denoting half value) on obverse.

Enlargement of DV countermark:



This is a devaluation countermark indicating this coin is re-valued as a Dupondius (half value) due to its very low weight. Note edge chisel mark on the obverse at approx. 3 o'clock which is always present on DV countermarked coins.

IMITATIVE CLAUDIUS OB CIVES SERVATOS SESTERTIUS WITH COUNTERMARK


BMCRE, Vol. I, CLAUDIUS, SESTERTIUS, Rome, No. 120, 41-45AD (38mm, 29.2gm)
Obverse depiction: Claudius, laureate head facing right
Inscription: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TRP IMP
Countermarked PROB
Mattingly note - Cmk. in oblong incuse in front of neck and face; end of legend obliterated
Reverse depiction: Civic Oak Wreath
Inscription in four lines:
EX SC
O B
C I V E S
SERVATOS
(within Civic Oak Wreath)

Enlargement of PROB countermark:



PROB (Probatum = approved) countermark. I believe this to be an irregular issue coin (struck from locally made unofficial dies). Note the flattened and bulged area on the reverse resulting from the very heavily struck countermark on the obverse which was carelessly positioned almost off the flan. The inscriptional lettering on the reverse is somewhat uneven and not very well formed.

CALIGULA AGRIPPA NEPTUNE AS WITH CLAUDIUS COUNTERMARK


Agrippa Obverse & Neptune reverse As
BMCRE, Vol I, Tiberius, No. 168 (RIC, Vol I, No. 58)
Plate 26
Reverse: Claudius Countermark TIAV (A and V ligatured) in oblong incuse over head of Neptune

"In hand" enlargement of countermark:


Neptune reverse
As, BMCRE, Vol I, Tiberius, No. 168 (RIC, Vol I, No. 58)
Plate 26
Reverse: Claudius Countermark TIAV in oblong incuse over head of Neptune

Mattingly lists TIAV as the usual Countermark employed by Claudius for these coins. They were issued for extended circulation in Britain by Claudius following his Victory there. These were the common Roman denominations used as legal tender in Britannia - evidently for a very long time, for many are found in very worn condition.

CLAUDIUS TRIUMPHAL ARCH SESTERTIUS WITH NERO COUNTERMARK

Nero also Countermarked and issued Claudius aes coinage in order to extend the supply of money in Britain after the death of Claudius.


BMCRE, Vol. I, CLAUDIUS, SESTERTIUS, Rome, No. 123, 41-45AD (35mm, 22.3gm)
Obverse depiction: Claudius, laureate head facing right
Inscription: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TRP IMP
Countermarked NCAPR in oblong incuse rectangle behind head (unknown mark on head)
Reverse depiction: Triumphal arch surmounted by equestrian statue of Nero Claudius Drusus
Inscription: NERO CLAVDIVS DRVSVS GERMAN IMP

Enlargement of NCAPR countermark:



This coinage was usually countermarked NCAPR - which is interpreted different ways by collectors and researchers, with the most popular and frequently used interpretations being Nero Caesar Augustus Probavit or Nero Caesar Augustus Populo Romano. This coin was well struck and centered. Likewise, the countermark is well struck and correctly positioned. I believe this to be a coin produced at the Rome mint and subsequently re-issued for use in Britain.

 

I too am very glad that we all collect differently: it's hard enough to buy coins as-is. I would add that I am very interested in the numismatic aspects of coin production but have made the conscious decision to defer to specialists who focus on them and to instead appreciate them without owning them. No one can buy everything and it's nice to be somewhat narrowly focused as it saves me having to battle it out with friends.

 

Those are some spectacular, and historically significant countermarks, Jamesicus - thanks for sharing those, and for the additional information on them.

While we're on the topic of appearance, etc., I've been collecting ancient countermarks for about a year, and my standards, such as they are, really drop when it comes to countermarks - if there is hope of identifying the countermark on an otherwise worn smooth host coin, I will go for it (if the price is right). Below are a few examples of coins that appeal to me despite some rather spectacular flaws.

Here are a couple of common AVG and TICA countermarks believed to be around the time of Claudius:



Here is a terrible Ptolemaic Egypt countermarked with a Seleucid anchor:



Finally, two more Roman countermarks and a lyre countermarked on Aigai Aeolis AE (which isn't actually too bad):



One of the things I really like about collecting ancient countermarks is that collector interest seems pretty low, at least on eBay. I typically only pay a couple bucks for the more common or uglier ones.

 

To me, those are wonderful countermarked coins you posted @Marsyas Mike - thank you! Countermarked coins are great historical artifacts and it gladdens my heart to see yet another enthusiast studying and collecting them.

 

I do know dies were engraved by various artisans and obverses and reverses can and do vary, but I've not collected long enough to become familiar with the points of "Fine Style" and would not immediately know if one coin was in a finer style than another. I can discern which I might prefer if I had a selection of the same coin lined up for examination. Condition and price play an important part in my current collecting - I hope to learn "Style" with the passage of time when perhaps I've seen 100 of the same type.

Here are some of the Hendin 1586 Divus Vespasian 'Judaea Capta' commemoratives struck under Titus that were sold at CNG. Is any one of these in a finer style than the others? I think I know which I'd buy based on personal eye appeal and price.

Fine, toned, minor deposits. @ 150.00



VF @ 550.00


Good VF, some luster remains, lightly toned. @ 300.00


Good VF, a pair of scratches on obverse, small flan flaw on reverse. @ 320.00


Good VF, dark find patina, rough surfaces, cleaning scratches, some deposits. @ 450.00



Good VF, toned. @ 525.00



Good VF, toned, numerous cleaning scratches, small flan flaw on obverse. @ 555.00


Near EF, toned. @ 425.00


Near EF, toned. @ 900.00


Edited to add: looking at the last two coins they are the same, but sold for very different amounts.