Rarity of Ancient Coins.

Great discussion. Thanks. I "Liked" every post. It was well worth considering. A true collector (one who has "the gene you do not inherit") is concerned with four parameters: Completeness; Rarity; Condition; and (overarching) Value.

It would be unusual for anyone here to buy for one dollar exactly one unique Mint-state coin for which an auction firm as advertised its willingness pay $10,000 to anyone who has it -- and then stop. Period. No more collecting. Got it. Done. Time for a new hobby. I own a coin. In fact, I own the coin. Don't need more.

And you have have to really ask: What is it? In other words, even with ancients, varieties are known. And with ancients some basic considerations that do not apply to moderns can take front place: Centering and Strike. So, a coin may be "common" enough, but if yours is well-centered and well-struck, it could be objectively rare relative to all others of its kind.

So, Rarity is just one factor... And as indicated in all of the above, there's a lot to it.
Thanks, again, to all for the insights.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have been a collector of ancients for over forty years and first I fully relied on rarities given in RIC, until Curtis Clay pointed out that RIC largely if not fully depends on what Cohen found in the French market sixty to eighty years prior to the compilation of RIC.

Nice examples of differing rarity can be found among the fouth-century coins from Arles. Some ten years ago, Philippe Ferrando thoroughly sought through existing collections, both public and private, discovered many dozens of previously unknown coins and found a great many where RIC said: R5! Many coins have come to light in recent years by metal detectorists, sometimes utterly changing the rarity of some types.

When we look at the RIC rarity of the coins of Siscia, it is no big deal to fill a whole cabinet with R4 and R5 examples. Yugoslavia was a closed and relatively poor country, but in the past forty years has provided us with perhaps millions of ancient coins. So which variety can be said to be (still) rare?

Reka Devna provided coins principally from Rome, but nobody knows how the treasure was accumulated, nor over which period of time. Yet, if I want to check rarity of my Antonine denarii, I always check RD!
BTW: Rarity has little or nothing to do with value. According to some dealers, all ancients are 'rare and valuable', but I always wonder for what type of collectors they mention such nonsense.....

Most collectors have their own niches and through their expertise recognise extreme rarities or even new varieties so far unpublished. Such a variety is of no importance to 99% of the collectors, as they don't collect that particular area!

Overpricing of common coins is a well-known phenomenon as well: Marc Anthony's denarii are usually extremely common, but demand a high price as everybody 'must have' one. The same goes for Tiberius' seated Livia denarii of which type there must at least be tens of thousands around!

In this thread, almost everything has been said so far, with some very sensible comments - thanks for that!

Frans

 

This has been an excellent thread with many great collectors participating, I have learned a lot from my fellow collectors posts. Thank you for sharing your insights.

I am very focused in my collecting, 12th century Byzantine, originally just one denomination. My thoughts have changed on rarity through the years. I no longer rely on Catalogs that attempted to either show rarity by price or just market conditions. ( Sear , CLBC, Sommer) They all become quickly flawed. The market of course seems to change when one coin type comes to market, sets a record price then many others seem to flood in. These days I base rarity on personal insights of the coin and following it in the marketplace and the site finds on archeological finds mostly in Corinth and Athens but that alone is in no means totally accurate. Some of the types coins just did not circulate in those areas.

Here is an example of SBCV-1933 a tetarteron that took me a few years to find , the coin became readily available for a short time and is now dried up again. I managed to acquire 6 + specimens

SEAR, DOC and Sommer all considered it rare, in fact Sommer thought it was a half tetarteron disagreeing with the other Catalogs. DOC lists one example not in their collection.

Here is my lightest example coming in at 1.3gm, my heaviest example comes in at 5.4gm, so I understand the confusion on attributing the denomination.

Size 21/12mm

Weight 1.3gm

And a heavier example. 4.9gm size 21.40gm


I no longer consider it rare even though I can find no examples for sale in the last year. I do believe when one sells again at a eye catching price I am sure more will make it to market.

 

Good example of how knowledge, especially in depth knowledge such as yours sir, is simply a huge advantage. Also, ALWAYS buy into hoards. If you truly know the scarcity of a coin, do not be afraid when suddenly some come onto the market. This is how this hobby works. A coin is rare, then a small or large group comes onto the market, driving down prices and giving the illusion they are suddenly not a rare coin.

Every single time in my 20 years of collecting ancients, this is what happens. Everyone gets lazy who wanted an example of the coin, thinking "they are everywhere, I will wait until prices come down a little more since there is no wait". Every single time they regret waiting, as the hoard gets dispersed and the rare coin is rare once again. I do exactly what @BenSi does, buy as many examples as I can, when I can, since I may not get another chance in my lifetime. Do not be lulled by a temporary hoard. If you know your area of coins, and a coin was rare for years and years and now suddenly available, do not lose your chance to own it. It WILL become rare or scarce again.

 

Very interesting reading the information given in the posts. And thanks @ Roman Collector for the links in his post to different websites. I didn't know some of them yet! For me, as a beginner collector, rarity is still kind of difficult to really understand and 'see' when browsing auctions. For now i tend to go for the coins that i have on my want-list, which is still mainly emperor-based, and not specifically coin type-based. Although i see the list is shifting more and more to a coin type-based list, because of the many emperors i want, i now have at least one coin. And then still i tend to go for the coins that appeal to me, looking at the story behind it, patina, sharpness, strike, and, mainly, if i can afford it. So when seeing a coin of an emporer i want but it doesn't appeal to me, i won't go for it. Even if it is very rare. And maybe it is because i have not been collecting that long, or, not as long as many of the collectors on this board, that i dont have a specific focus yet. Although i like Hadrian-travel coinage a lot, and because i look at auctions a lot, i know begin to understand which travel coins are rarely offered (even perhaps that doesn't make them 'rare').

I do have by accident two coins that might be 'rare'. One i posted before of vespasianus, and i couldn't attribute it but because of this board i know finally what it was. And one of commodus that seems to be a sort of hybrid type, and with help of the auctioneer i was able to find a similar example at cng. I like the green patina on this coin.

 

I had one guy get upset at me when I called the 1886 Liberty nickel “common”. He was offended that I called a coin with a mintage of “only” 3 million common. It is a semi-key date, but prices have come down substantially since the internet has shown just how common they are.

10000 have been certified, and more exist outside of slabs.

For me, the entire type has to be rare, or the rare variation has to represent something significant, for me to consider it special.

For example, this ant-nose coin’s inscription has only a small handful known (I think 6), with 2 being in museums. If someone wants to complete a set of individual ant-nose inscriptions, each of which comprise distinct types, they have to have one of these.



Now this Ming knife is a very rare variation of a common type, but it represents the evolution from one type to another, and that is what makes it significant, regardless of its rarity.

 

Long ago, in 2001, I wrote a web page on rarity of ancient coins, largely with US coin collectors in mind.

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/rarity.html

It is in agreement with many comments above. However, in addition it may help explain how, why, and when rarity affects value. Read it and tell me what you think.

 

This isn't true of the new Flavian RIC II.1. Published in 2007, it is a fairly accurate gage of rarity for the coinage covered in the volume because the authors consulted online sources (eBay, Vcoins), auction sales, and the major collections. Not to mention the many private collectors who submitted coins for inclusion. There are a handful of frequency ratings I disagree with because I believe them to be either rarer or commoner than indicated, but they are in the minority.

Of course, R3 (unique) coin statuses are constantly changing and I regard that rating as preliminary until further specimens turn up.

 

Love it, I did get a laugh at your ending defining Ebay terms of rarity.

 

I approve of this statement

 

It's fun seeing what examples of rare coins a diverse group of specialists can turn up. I like Roman coins a lot, and own my share of rarities there, but I love Indo Sassanian coinage; a passion shared by only a few. Not many coins slip past me, and thanks to their unpopularity, there are few that I am unable to win if I really want them. Some favorite examples:


Looks like a regular Gadhaiya, but the lips are replaced by a circle, possibly the same punch used to make the sun on the Horseman types. This type was not known to Mitchiner, Deyell, or Maheshwari - this particular coin came from Lanz's ebay store in early 2017 and was followed last year by a couple dozen more, of which I was able to get about six. No two coins are a die match, and few are even of the same style and fabric. But who besides me cares enough to want one? Almost nobody else bid on the coins, and owning about a quarter of all known specimens cost me less than $100. Maybe thousands will be posted for sale next year, or maybe they will never be seen again?

A popular type is the "distinctive nose" type which has an elephant trunk-like swirl before the bust. The type is known to Mitchiner, Deyell, and Maheshwari, the latter of whom studied a hoard of a couple hundred of the type. All three authors studied dumpy coins in impressively low grade billon of just 1-2%. They do exist in better silver.


This one wasn't cheap, but is the only specimen I have ever seen that shows the moon... and it's upside down and on the wrong side! This one also shows the die break that probably erased the original face:

Those with a face are also extremely rare, unknown to any published catalog, and I have only seen images of about six specimens, of which I own two.

Converse examples; Maheshwari got his hands on hoards of hundreds of coins that I rarely if ever see come up for sale.

This is the grandfather of all Indo Sassanian coinage, an Indian-minted Peroz imitation with retained pseudo-legends

I've only seen a couple ever come up for sale, and none in more than two years - these coins make up about the first 250 coins of Maheshwari's book!

Likewise, this is an extremely rare early "Sri Ma" drachm I won in a Roma group lot; the only one I have seen for sale since starting in 2016

Maheshwari had a few dozen of these, plus hundreds more that I have never even seen for sale.

 

Until recently I was only able to accept RIC as one book in ten volumes with some reservations because they covered the whole subject and volumes started where the previous one left off. Lately, however, it is fashionable to update one part of a volume but not the other meaning you can't be rid of the outdated volume when you buy the new one. The books have always been separate works with their own style but now it seems they should be titled "Flavian Imperial Coins" rather than recalling the old book. Worst to my mind is the RIC V online catalog which would make a humongous printed volume that still makes you keep the old part two. It is hard to find anything that is true for RIC as a whole. Adding new updates to parts helps nothing. Having said how much I dislike the concept of part updates I should never be allowed to say, "Where is RIC IV part 1?"

 

Honestly, this is the article that got me to thinking of rarity in the terms I do now. I highly recommend your and Doug's site to all new hobbiests.

 

Warren, that page is one of my favorites among the multitude of useful topics on your website .

In addition to the hilarious and accurate remarks about eBay seller rarity notes ("Unlisted"-- translation: I have one book and it's not in it. ), this passage captures both the appeal and reality of "rarities":

There is a thrill in discovering and owning a never-before-seen type. You can feel a strong sense of "belonging to the club" of serious collectors when you know you have something unique. Other serious collectors will definitely be interested and laud your acumen.

However, a beginner can not know what is unique (or, even "very rare") from reading eBay descriptions which are often erroneous when it comes to rarity. It takes years of immersion in the subject and an extensive book and catalog library to begin to be able to know what might be unpublished, or even genuinely "very rare." However, if you persevere, buy the books, and keep your eyes peeled, you will eventually find occasional minor treasures about which you can say, with assurance, "This is a very rare type." Then you will doubtless enjoy a great and lasting feeling. However, unless the type is really distinctive, don't expect your rarity to bring a great premium.

 

That, my friend, is for you and @maridvnvm to write.

@Valentinian nailed it exactly, didn't he?!

 

I won this coin which was in Kuenker Auction 318 and it finally arrived on Thursday So I look up the coin in the new RIC and find it referenced as No. 552 and is listed as an R2. In the first edition of RIC it is listed as No. 99 and "scarce". The R2 reference suggests that the coin is rare and is known by only a few specimens and a few dies.I then checked the various internet search engines and found two examples listed mine which was in Kuenker and previously in a Baldwins auction and a second specimen sold in a Gemini auction previously in a Freeman & Sear auction. Both coins share the same dies as the RIC specimen pictured in the book. So far so good. Okay Looks like I got something rare.
Well maybe maybe not. I got one reference, and search engines that start at best in the late 1990's. Furthermore these search engines are rather limited and while they do cover a large number of auctions do rather more poorly with FPLs and on line operations like Ebay and V Coins. Another factor might be that this is a variation on a fairly common theme within the coinage of Domitian, an reverse featuring Minerva. Because of this, the coin may not have been thought suitable for presentation in an important auction. So when dealing with such a coin I would advise caution. This coin may be rare but there is the possibility that it is not. PS I bought the coin because I liked it.

 

Coryssa has 2 entries but of the same coin. One is the freeman & Sear coin which is also the Gemini coin. Acsearch has 4 entries. 2 are for the Freeman & Sear and Gemini coin and the other 2 are the Baldwin's and Kunker coin.

So far I have only found total of 2 examples of this coin.

RIC lists one in Berlin. This coin is the RIC plate coin. This coin is also the reference coin on OCRE.

There is no example on Wildwinds. There are no examples in the forum galleries.

This makes 3 examples so far.

I think it is reasonable to say that you have a rare coin.

It is also a wonderful coin. Congrats on winning this stunning coin!

 

Ha! Yes! In the late 19th century British collectors in India were keen and sophisticated. But later, their collections seemed often enough to languish forgotten for generations back in England, until high death duties saw them dumped at auction by distant descendants in the 1960's and 1970's.

For instance Plate I #1 in the BM (Rapson) catalogue shows a battered large lead piece, completely flat on one side inscribed “Sri Sata”. Around 1975 I bought the second known specimen, far superior, with a clear reverse (a rather large goddess). GBP 1.50 from a junk box.

The coins are old but a new crop of humans turns up every 20 years…………...

Or consider the base metal Ghengis Khan issues of Ghazna. Few dies, and thus probably few struck. But in reality common enough today, since the population was probably killed soon after the issue, and the coins just left in the ruins. But still “rare” and selling for GBP 50+ - Because demand much exceeds supply…….

But my main point here is that, for anyone with an objective interest in history itself – it is the common coins that are important, not the rare ones.

As I think Auden once wrote ‘A true historian studies coins and weapons’

Rob T

 

Rarely do we get two more profound statements in one post. As a specialist in something, we tend to value things simply because they are different. This is particularly true of oddities caused by a die error or the coins with dating devices that were current for only a short time. Rare coins that are rare by their type or design outrank flyspecks but coins that are rare for a reason top my list. That is why I got interested in the Septimius Severus VICTOR IVST series which soon were seen as politically incorrect since IVSTVS was associated with Pescennius Niger (he whose name would not be uttered around Septimius). There must be other coins with backstories of note that have been lost to time.

Common emperors: Perhaps the '12 Caesars' we should be collecting are the 12 emperors that made the most difference in the history of Rome. We would argue about who was on the list.