I just got these 3 coins back from NGC yesterday after waiting 61 days . All 3 were once in the Michel Prieur collection.
Examples you can be very proud of, @Al Kowsky ! The whole family, too! In the Antioch tetradrachm format, only Otacilia Severa is represented in my collection: Otacilia Severa, 244-249. Roman provincial AR tetradrachm, 12.23 g, 25.1 mm, 7 h. Syria, Seleucis & Pieria, Antioch ad Orontem, AD 245. Obv: ΜΑΡ ΟΤΑΚΙΛ CΕΟΥΗΡΑ CΕΒ, diademed and draped bust, right. Rev: ΔΗΜΑΡΧ ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC ΥΠΑΤΟ Α, eagle on palm, left, tail right, SC in exergue. Refs: McAlee 1088; Prieur 341; BMC 541.
Roman Collector, You've got a nice example of Otacilia Severa too . She is the toughest one of the family to find a nice example of. I spent a long time looking for an acceptable coin & finally settled on this coin despite the irregular flan & heavy porosity on the reverse, but the portrait is excellent. When I originally got these coins from a CNG auction my 1st thought was to do a family group & it's interesting to see the comparison .
Congrats, great looking coins. Otacilia Severa (244 - 249 A.D.) SYRIA, Seleucis and Pieria AR Tetradrachm O: AP ΩTAKIΛ CЄOYHPAN CЄB, draped bust right, wearing stephane, set on crescent. R: ΔHMAPX ЄΞOYCIAC YΠATO Γ, ANTIOXIA/S C in two lines in exergue, eagle standing facing, head and tail right, with wings displayed, holding wreath in beak. 11.76g 26mm McAlee-1091 (Rare); Prieur-385 (10 spec.) A scarce variety.
Exceptionnal examples as usual @Al Kowsky Prieur # 319, Mc Alee # 887 BMC #512, Prieur # 377_069 Prieur # 324_049 BMC #551, Prieur # 474_291 Q
Sweet tetradrachms! Curious about the labels as NGC has cited Ex. Prieur Collection on the Otacilia label but not on the other two and you mentioned they all came from the same collection. Looks like they have room for 5 lines of text so I wonder how it was decided to keep that pedigree off the other two? Did you have to submit evidence of the pedigree and that they were plated when you submitted? Also, on the Philip I label is the text under the barcode printed or did you add that? Just curious is all.
These three demonstrate well the surface grading standards of NGC 3/5,4/5 and 5/5. It reminds me of a gas gauge on a car that takes a lot longer to go from full to half than from half to fumes. I wish we had an example here from 1/5 and 2/5. There are many, many worse surfaced coins and most of us own them rather than perfect coins like that Philip I. I have one of Philip II which I would expect to get 1/5 mostly because they do not have a 0/5. I do not own a slabbed 1/5 coin. I do have a 2/5 (removed from plastic by a previous owner but it is an Otho from Antioch and hard to compare to these later tetradrachms. The dealer I bought it from could not see the scratches that made it 2/5 when the coin was still in plastic but they are certainly there when you blow up the coin in a photo. I do believe that NGC should have used a 10 point scale rather than 5 so it would be possible to separate the really abysmal surfaced coin (corroded, scrubbed etc.) from coins like Mat's (a 2/5???) for example. Perhaps they realized that it is not worth slabbing a coin that will only go 3/5 or less since people who buy plastic tend to avoid the low numbers. I'm curious about that, too. Of the three this is the only Rome mint and only officina marked coin so the line is very appropriate. Not all of the MONVRB coins were so marked. Mine is another Rome mint 2/5? hopeful but has no officina letter. Grades are opinions but when they are in plastic, their importance is magnified. That explains why the previous owner cracked out the Otho. I am glad he did since it saved me the labor of cracking for my own reason.
dadams, Good question . NGC does need verification that a coin was in the collection of an individual before putting it on a label, & a provenance from a major auction house is usually good enough. I've acquired a number of coins that Michel Prieur acquired after his book was written, & the same applies to Richard McAlee. In some cases McAlee will acknowledge in his book that he got a coin from Prieur. So rather than clutter a label I'll ask NGC only to acknowledge the source where a coin is illustrated. Sometimes I'll add info on a label for digital reference that I feel is important like on the coin of Philip I.
Doug, I like that Tet of Otho, & being a one year type (AD 69) makes it very desirable ! It looks like a solid V.F. with nice toning. I see no officina mark on the Philip Tet, but the ground line indicates it's a product of Officina 1, struck early in AD 246. On NGC standards I'd grade it Ex. Fine, Strike 4/5, & surface 3/5.
