Rare, Very Rare, Extremely Rare

Blue Rare... well, maybe not. Over the last year I’ve been very lucky and have had the opportunity to fill a few gaps in my Roman Imperatorial collection. The auction house descriptions for these coins used a term that we are all familiar with and has become somewhat of a semantic satiation. The word ‘rare’ in combination with an intensifier such as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ seems to be an ironically commonly used description by some sellers. But when used appropriately they can describe when a coin is truly uncommon to encounter in the marketplace.

Below are a few (listed by the seller) ‘rare’ coins that I’ve added to my collection over the last year, I’ve included the auction description for context. The use of the term by the seller didn’t increase the probability of me making the purchase, but as I’ve only come across each of them once since I commenced collecting ancients I had to capture them for my collection.




Aemilian AR Antoninianus. Rome, AD 253. IMP CAES AEMILIANVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / P M TR P I P P, Aemilian standing left, sacrificing over altar from patera and holding sceptre; standard behind to the left. RIC 7; RSC 32. 3.57g, 21mm, 1h. Extremely Fine. Rare.
From a private UK collection.



Magnus Maximus AR Siliqua. Aquileia, AD 388. D N MAG MAXIMVS P F AVG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right / VIRTVS ROMANORVM, Roma seated, head left, on throne, holding globe and reversed spear; AQPS in exergue. RIC 54a. 1.47g, 17mm, 7h. Good Very Fine. Extremely Rare. Ex L. Rose Collection.



Marius Æ Antoninianus. Cologne, AD 268-269. IMP C M AVR MARIVS AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust right / VICTO[RIA] AVG, Victory standing left, holding wreath and palm. RIC 17. 2.70g, 20mm, 1h. Near Extremely Fine; an exceptional portrait, and excellent preservation of detail on both obv. and rev. Very Rare.

As I believe that The CT members are some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, would you please offer your opinion on the true ‘rarity’ of the above coins? Also, would you please share some of your rare coins, or an example of the description from an unscrupulous seller where the word rare was possibly misused. Please refrain from using the names of any sellers or auction houses if possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice coins @Egry! I agree with your skepticism relating to “rarity” (+1, 2 …………… and so on). It seems to me that many collectors here feel the same way. In my own case, as a frequent user of RIC, I am very skeptical about the rarity assessments used there as they are mostly based on coin counts in major private collections, museum collections, etc. - static counting that doesn’t take into account subsequent hoard discoveries, etc. I have no idea how many dealers arrive at “rarity” determination for the coins they list.

For my coin buying exploits I use my own system which is probably just as flawed as all of the others - but it is flexible and it works fairly well for me for coins I have been pursuing. I use a two tier designation:

1. hard to find - this is my label for coins that I do not unearth by searching facilities such as Vcoins, popular auction sites, individual sellers that I trust (but not eBay) for about six months without finding one. For me that equates to about rare.

2. very hard to find - same as 1, except that if I haven’t found one after about one year. that equates to about very rare to really rare in my eyes.

I am constantly changing the parameters and my system is very imprecise, I know, but I now mostly ignore rarity labeling by others - but not all the time.

 

I have the same Aemilian, but not nearly as nice. Yours is absolutely beautiful! I agree it's rare. Yours has a good chance of being best of type I'd say.


Seems to me the Mag Max is rare too. "Extremely rare" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. Here's a Mag Max I consider to be extremely rare:

It's a Constantinople issue for him, which is surprising because he was a usurper of course. It proves there was a short period at the end of 383 or the beginning of 384 when Theodosius I officially recognized him. I've only seen one other example, sold by CNG in 2008. It's an obverse die match, which helps to confirm that it was a very small issue.

I wish I had a nice Marius like that! Again, "very rare" seems an exaggeration. "Scarce," maybe? Judging by the number of examples on acsearch, that is.

 

Very fine. The least we can say, is that they are scarce cherries. Many collectors seek these Emperors to complete their collections.

 

I like your system @jamesicus, I’d like to think I abide by a similar one, but no doubt mine would adopt a smaller net of auction sites and private sellers. I tend to use this table for Roman ruler rarity as a guide, https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=ERIC - Rarity Tables, I have no idea of its accuracy but it’s close enough for me at the moment. Probably to my own demise I tend to trust my gut when I’m bidding or trying to make a deal. I’m soaking in as much knowledge from experts like yourself and learning a lot.

 

Nice Aemilian! Also, what an amazing Mag Max! Is that in your collection?

Thank you for sharing acsearch, what a valuable tool. I see that you need to log in to see the sale prices. Do you know if there is a cost for a membership?

 

All three are excellent coins and not easily found, whatever the description! In my view they are all "not common". For a definition of rarity that is useful in deciding "do I bid and how much do I bid", the answers to these questions can be useful gauges:
- "How many have come to auction in the last year"
- "How many are on vcoins.com today"

For your three coins: I can find one this year, but maybe not one the quality of your examples e.g. on vcoins at the moment (counting all coins - ignoring a lot of detail of type) Aemilian (~10), Magnus Maximus (~5), Marius (~25).

A healthy skepticism on descriptions in auctions is generally a good idea - "Rare" is not a technical term that is comparable across dealers and auction houses. For ancient collectors, rare doesn't correlate with pricing i.e. just because it is "rare or extremely rare" doesn't mean you should pay a lot for it. Demand, condition, number on the market today, style and other factors all play a big factor in price - which should cost more this unique coin (0 available anywhere):
or this common mass produced tetradrachm (>100 on vcoins):

Maybe it isn't surprisingly that the second coin cost almost 10x the first.

You might enjoy this article from David Hendin and Arthur Houghton, where they do the thought exercise of defining objective "rarity": "Defining Rarity in Seleucid and Ancient Jewish Coinages". The authors ask, "Can one devise a concept approach to rarity values that can be applied to all ancient coinages?". Even if they were successful, I don't think it would help me decide "do I bid and how much do I bid".

 

Thank you @Sulla80, a great point made, I agree rarity does not equate to monetary value. For a coin to have a higher monetary value you need there to be a healthy demand, supply alone does not dictate price. A bit of a lame joke I hear some Australian coin dealers say about low mintage modern New Zealand coins is that “New Zealand coins are on sale today, demand is down because the Coin Collector went on holidays”. I’m assuming the same could apply to certain types of ancients as well.

Interestingly enough all three of those coins were purchased from the same auction house, but at different auctions. What I find even more interesting is @Severus Alexander debunking of their rarity intensifier claim, I feel more confident in his assessment than theirs.

I find the Athena Owl tetradracm to be quite unique, there seems to be a lot of amazing examples available on the market, the market seems saturated, yet the price seems to hold and from what I’ve seen seems to be going up at a rapid pace.

Here is a poor quality photo of mine:



As I’m not collecting coins to make a profit or for resale, the rarity claim almost never comes into play regarding what I’m willing to pay. However, I would like to feel as if I’m not paying over market value. Right or wrong I probably approach it a bit simply, I have a gap in my collection and I need a coin to fill it. If it takes me a few years to find an appealing one I like then it must be uncommon, then I calibrate the price I’m willing to pay based on recent purchases of other coins in my collection. Based on the other posts it seems to be a common strategy.

Also, thank you for the link to the article.

 

Remember when Syracuse dekadrachms were rare? Some coins will be considered such until the next big hoard is discovered.

 

Those are lovely coins, @Egry, each an addition you are rightfully proud of.

The concept of rarity in ancient coins is difficult to pin down because it can be difficult to make an accurate census of surviving copies of any given type. Moreover, the discovery of a new hoard may instantly double or quadruple the number of known examples.

Moreover, given the vast variety of ancient coins -- particularly in the field of Roman provincial coinage -- there is much truth to the adage, "there is nothing as common in ancient numismatics as a rare coin." I'd venture that many of us have coins that have never been described before in the numismatic literature.

So, we are left with methods such as @jamesicus describes. In general, the harder a coin is to come by, the rarer it is. Take your Aemilian antoninianus, for example.

First of all, you've misattributed it as RIC 7, which has the obverse legend, IMP AEMILIANVS P F AVG. Yours has the obverse legend IMP CAES AEMILIANVS P F AVG, as well as a standard between the emperor and the tripod on the reverse, making it RIC 18.



A search at acsearchinfo for "Aemilian Antoninianus Patera -supera" (which will pick up RIC 7, 16, 17 and 18, all commonly mistaken for each other), reveals eight examples of RIC 18, including yours, which appeared at a Roma auction August 22, 2019. You can throw in the one from Lanz up at Wildwinds and this one from CNG (misattributed as RIC 7). That's about an example being auctioned off every year and a half or so, not counting those that may be for sale at retail, not auction. The coinproject has no examples.

One can search for copies in museum collections, such as at OCRE, which notes four examples. I searched for "Aemilian patera" at the British Museum site and it came up with examples of RIC 7 and 16, but not 18. Cohen (no. 33), cites an example in the French national collection (BnF).



So, that makes 15 copies of RIC 18 I could find online, so it's definitely somewhere on the rare-scarce spectrum. But how many are in museum collections that haven't digitized their collections? How many are in private hands at the present time? What is the total number of coins such as the OP coin in existence? Fewer than 25? 50? 100? 200? It's hard to say. Certainly, by any standard used by modern coin collectors, that would be a extreme rarity. But by ancient coin standards -- where it is not unusual for a collector to have a coin known from only one or two other examples -- what's the proper modifier for the word rare in the case of the OP coin? Extremely rare? Very rare? Quite rare? Or is it just plain old rare?

I know that doesn't answer your question, @Egry , nor does it address the issue of semantic saturation of dealer listings that use superlatives with rare, but that's the nature of language itself. In any event, you have something special and hard to come by.

 

Exactly. I know a coin dealer that lost a lot on a double daric. He had one in his shop inventory, three months later the market was saturated and the prices dropped considerably. I never heard of a specific hoard being found, but something must have happened.

 

I fear it is time to trot out that old truth,"The third known example went unsold because there are only two people who care and they already have one."

Many of us have a coin that is possibly the only one known or the only one not in a public collection like the British Museum. In many cases that refers to some unusual combination of minor details that mean something only to a specialist. Much better are coins of a type completely different and not known in another or many other examples. These are certainly rare. They tend not to sell all that often because the current owner values the item higher than the potential buyers. That beings us to the other old saying, "There is nothing more common than a rare ancient coin."

A few rare examples:
This sestertius of Divus Caracalla is the worse of two I have seen. There is a drawing of one in the Banti book on sestertii which may be one of the two. What makes it exceptionally rare is that this die has one fewer step on the altar than the more common (only very rare?) type. Who cares? I do. I wish I had bought the other one when I saw it. With no demand for bronze disease survivors of any type I don't expect it to make my heirs wealthy.


Because it is left facing and an interesting reverse, this as of Geta would sell well if it were higher grade but, again, there are not many people who are beating down the doors for mid grade things like this. I value it higher than you but my heirs don't care. I hope yours will.


The late Roger Bickford-Smith, the Eastern mint expert of his day, told me that, of my coins, he wanted this the most. The Invicto Imp type is common for Septimius from 'Emesa' but this one is definitely Alexandria style. He had seen none and students of that level can overlook 'ugly as sin' grade when necessary.


Some coins are only rare if you consider grade. If there are 1000 examples of a coin and 950 of them low grade, the fifty will be classified as rare and be in demand by people who have seen the bad ones. I don't tend to collect these. Of the 50, there will be one that is mint state and the best known. I am never even tempted to bid on these but we have several members here that specialize in them.

Errors make a special class of rarity. Each can be unique but only is in demand as it relates to others illustrating that point. I wanted an example of a double strike that corrected a brockage so I wanted the coin below. The fact that it was a Magnentius meant next to nothing. Since errors are common, the people who collect them have to rank them according to just how interesting they are to them.


Many thousands of Byzantine coins are overstruck on earlier coins. Usually that means a few years earlier. The appeal of this common Anonymous follis is that the undertype was an as of Gordian III and almost 800 years old when overstruck. The obvious question is whether it was a one of a kind thing or if the mint found a mint sack of a thousand and overstruck them all. The number of people in line for this one may change if more are found but I suspect if a large dealer had a thousand of them and marketed them properly, each would sell for more than I was charged for this 'novelty' coin. There is nothing more common than a rare ancient coin but there is so much more demand for things known than for things unknown that prices seem odd until you realize that demand drives the market and rarity means nothing.

Tilt your head to the left and Gordian is more apparent.


A major expert in our hobby has stated that people want rare coins that they can show to other people who wish they could own one. It is easier to find someone desirous of a high grade Athenian tetradrachm (thousands exist) or any level of Brutus EID MAR denarius (~100 exist). In a practical sense, these are more 'rare' than things that are 'unique' and unknown.

 

That is an amazing answer! Thank you for correcting my attribution, I will adjust my records accordingly.

Your process of assessment is amazing.

I am just in absolute awe of the knowledge being shared on here. I really feel I have nothing to offer you guys that is equivalent.

 

especially for iconic coins like Athenian owns, I don't know that the market can ever be saturated. Between those who see this as a blip in pricing and are "buying the dip" and those who just want a piece of history for themselves - the demand probably always outstrips supply - in contrast to the wonderful examples from @dougsmit where his post on cointalk may have doubled the market demand for one or more of these coins.

 

Nice Magnus Maximus siliqua. It was struck in the 18 months that MM controlled Italy so it’s rather scarce. Not impossible to get, but certainly one of the harder mints of his reign to collect. Now if you want a really rare coin try to get a Flavius Victor from Aquileia!

 

What a great share @dougsmit. You really put everything into perspective, thank you for that.

Your Byzantine overstruck Gordon’s III is fascinating, just think of the possible circumstances that could have lead to its creation. I always find overstruck coins interesting, but mine are mostly all 18th century Spanish 8 reals overstruck by either the British or newly formed South American republics, or the odd fractional French Ecu overstruck by a newer French king. And like you said, they seem to overstrike a coin that is only a few years apart, but ‘rarely’ 800 years apart. If by any chance you ever want to part with that coin, please keep me in mind , I know it’s a long shot.

 

..ha! you ain't just whistlin' dixie there...

 

Straight from the horses mouth.

 

I have used the the same scale as my Younger Coin Brother, @jamesicus .

I kinda understand the concept of Rarity, but it is incredibly subjective to me. I do understand when someone says: This is RARE because it was minted by an Entity that was wiped out, they were very important Historically, they did not make a lot of coins, but then their coins were melted down. We now know there is a small population of "X". Ergo, you have this coin that has a known population of "X".

I have some that are "RARE", because of a relatively known population. HOWEVER, does that MATTER to anyone else? I love them due to their significance in History, or what they FEEL to me.

CAPUA - Hannibal: When Hannibal came through Italia, he promised the Capuan Magistrates that Capua would become the capital of Italia should he destroy Rome. Obviously, the Roman Republic prevailed in the Second Punic War. Since Capua sided with Hannibal, all coins, and anything that Capua created to popularize Hannibal were destroyed, melted down, etc. Makes Capuan coins scarcer from this Era.


Campania CAPUA AE 14-5mm 216-211 Hera Oscan Grain ear Hannibal capital Italia SNG Fr 517 SNG ANS 219 HN Italy 500 EE Clain Stefanelli


PROVENANCE, and the coin is "Kinda Hard to Get"

Etruria, Populonia
2 ½ asses
3rd century BCE,
AR 0.85 g.
Radiate female head r. (possibly MENRVA); behind, CII.
Rev. Blank.
EC 104 (misdescribed, Female head with an Attic helmet).
Historia Numorum Italy 179.
Of the highest rarity, apparently only the second specimen known.
Dark patina and about very fine
From the collection of E.E. Clain-Stefanelli.

E.E. CLAIN-STEFANELLI DIES

ANS Executive Director Ute Wartenburg reported that
Elvira Eliza Clain-Stefanelli died Oct. 1, 2001 of cardiac
arrest. Mrs. Stefanelli retired in 2000 as the Senior
Curator of the National Numismatic Collection in the
Numismatics Division of the National Museum of
American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
DC.

She was at the Smithsonian for forty years, and was
responsible with her husband Vladimir for organizing and
building up the National Numismatic Collection. She
survived a Nazi concentration camp in WWII Europe,
moved to Rome, and learned numismatics there. In New
York she and her husband worked for Stack's and started
the Coin Galleries division there.

Her most recent publication was "Life In Republican Rome
On its Coinage", a lavishly illustrated discussion of the
themes which appear on the coinage of the Roman Republic,
published in 1999. Her major contribution to the science of
numismatic literature was her classic "Numismatic Bibliography",
published in 1985.
Elvira E. Clain-Stefanelli (1914-2001) and her husband Dr. Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli (1914-1982) were academic numismatic historians and later numismatic authors and curators. They pursued their interest in ancient coinage of the Black Sea region and U.S. medals as a team, serving together as members of the American Numismatic Society and numerous other national and international numismatic organizations. Vladimir became an ANS Associate in 1951 and a Fellow in 1957; Elvira became a Fellow in 1963. The two were frequent visitors to the Society when they worked for Hesperia Art Galleries and then Stack’s in the 1950s. In 1956 Vladimir became curator of the Smithsonian's Division of Numismatics; a year later, Elvira joined him as Assistant Curator. Together, they built the National Numismatic Collection from approximately 60,000 specimens in 1956 to almost one million objects. Two years after Vladimir's death in 1982, Elvira became the department's first executive director, holding that position until her retirement in 2000.
Dr. Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli (born Waldemar Günther Klein, but later changing the spelling of his surname to Clain and adding Stefanelli, his mother's maiden name) was born in Czernowitz, Bukovina, Austria (now part of the Ukraine and Romania). Vladimir was initially a well-known specialist of Eastern European coinage, in particular of his native Romania. He also specialized in historical documentation of United States coinages as well as coinages of Greek colonies and southeast European issues of the 15th and 16th centuries. Vladimir received a B.A. and M.A. in 1936, and Ph.D. in 1938 from the University of King Carol II in Austria. His 1938 doctoral dissertation, concerning the ancient coinage of Callatis, is included in the collection. Vladimir married the former Elvira Eliza Olinescu on January 3, 1939. After WW II, the couple moved to Italy where they worked for the P&P Santamaria firm. They moved to the United States in 1951, where they would live out the remainder of their lives.
Elvira E. Clain-Stefanelli was born in Bucharest, Romania. She received a degree in history from Franz Josef University in 1936 and later an M.A. in history from the University of Cernauti in Romania. Working with her husband after his appointment as manager of Stack's Coin Galleries subsidiary in 1954, Elvira wrote their first sales catalog. She joined the Smithsonian staff in 1957. In 1973 Elvira, along with her husband, received the Smithsonian Gold Medal for Exceptional Service. In 1996, she received the ANA's Farran Zerbe Memorial Award for Distinguished Service. During her numismatic career, Elvira was advisor to the U.S. Mint, the Department of Treasury, and many boards, committees, and associations.
Together or separately, Elvira and Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli wrote and published many important works including: Monetary history and medallic art at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C (Numisma, año) (1965); History of the National Numismatic Collections (1968); La monnaie: trésor d’art (1971); Medals Commemorating Battles of the American Revolution (1973); The Beauty and Lore of Coins Currency and Medals (1974); Chartered for Progress, Two Centuries of American Banking: A Pictorial Essay(1975); Muenzen der Neuzeit (1978); Numismatic Bibliography (1984); Life in Republican Rome (1999).

 

I do not FOCUS in the Roman Empire, but I have a few coins that folks feel are "Hard to Get".

MAGNUS MAXIMUS


RI Magnus Maximus 383-388 CE AE Follis


MARIUS


RI Marius 269 Gallic Usurper BI Ant CONCORD MILIT Clasped Hands


AEMILIANUS


RI Aemilianus 253 CE AE24 Viminacium mint Moesia Bull-Lion - Damnatio Memoriae


LAELIANUS


RI Laelianus CE 269 AE Ant 19mm 3.4g Moguntiacum mint Radiate cuirassed Victory RIC Vb 9 p373