New Republican denarius, looks undergraded

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by svessien, Aug 3, 2020.

  1. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Hi Valentinian. Although I understand what you mean here, I disagree. If the grade doesn’t matter, then we should stop using grades at all. It’s just a standard. Both meadoraman and Doug agreed with the standard used, while I thought it was too strict. That’s useful feedback for me.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Ah, great coin, thanks for showing.
    Here’s a third ruler from the same mint and workshop. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the same engraver on all 3 :)

    Galerius, Nicomedia Argentus, unlisted.jpg

    Galerius argentus, Nicomedia. Unlisted in RIC
     
    Marsyas Mike, Bing and Johndakerftw like this.
  4. lordmarcovan

    lordmarcovan Eclectic & Eccentric Moderator

    I concur with all of the above. To me, technical grade means relatively little. It's all about the eye appeal. This coin has that. I'd call it VF, personally, though I wouldn't go so far as "near Extremely Fine", as you suggest. Seems a decent middle-of-the-road VF to me.
     
    rrdenarius, DonnaML and svessien like this.
  5. RichardT

    RichardT Well-Known Member

  6. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    I don’t think the coin is EF either. I also don’t think it looks F. It looks like a solid VF to me.
    If it would be «near VF», then the grade is actually F (or F+, good Fine, etc.). This is not in line with how the rest of the market is graded, although it would satisfy those with strict and conservative standards.
    In any event, I’m quite sure I’ll be happy with the coin. ;)
     
    DonnaML likes this.
  7. Alegandron

    Alegandron "ΤΩΙ ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΩΙ..." ΜΕΓΑΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ, June 323 BCE

    I take a little different thought process on grading. I enjoy collecting for Historical reasons. This is a hobby to me, not a commodity to buy and sell. I am drawn to Coins being produced by historical figures, or during critical junctures in Human History, major events, interesting times, etc..

    Purely by function, Coins were intended to be used for transactions. Transactions are Human interactions, and being transacted several times and bisecting many Human lives. They being touched by hands and used for a myriad of monetary reasons. This causes circulation wear.

    However, we reverse the actual intrinsic value of that coins USE to humanity, by wanting the coin to have LESS wear. This less wear results in higher “grades”. However in my mind I see that as it being LESS of a coin because it had not circulated for its intended purpose.

    Just like my tools in my shop. The BEST tools are the ones that have good wear. They served their purpose well over a long period of time. Those are my favorite tools, the ones I value to do their job, the ones that do the job well, the ones I trust.

    What wonderful stories they tell !

    Just thoughts.

    I just have a pedestrian Victoriatus with a pig to show today.

    [​IMG]

    RR Victoriatus 206-195 BCE AR 16-5mm 2-61g Jupiter r Victory crowning trophy sow r in ex ROMA Syd 253 Russo RBW 554 Cr 121-1
     
    Volodya, Sulla80, akeady and 7 others like this.
  8. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts:) And the pedestrian pig.
    I understand what you’re saying. I don’t necessarily disagree. There are many worn coins that have a lot of appeal to me.
    Being concerned about grades and grading doesn’t necessarily have to do with money making, though. I think that as a collector, you tend to use categories and standards. Grade of conservation is one of the standards.

    I bought 4 coins yesterday. This one was the lowest grade, but the biggest kick. My first tetradrachm from Syracuse. I like the obverse, and with time I’ll probably be able to live with the reverse too :)
    (This coin was graded Fine/Very Good)

    1B68E8A7-A1F9-4755-9615-3FE2B9BD6D97.jpeg
     
    Sulla80, Limes, Marsyas Mike and 5 others like this.
  9. Al Kowsky

    Al Kowsky Well-Known Member

    svessien, I agree with you, the coin looks like a solid V.F. on today's grading standards :). Without doubt, ancient coins have gone thru a form of "grade-flation" similar to U.S. coins. As Donna points out, the chip on the reverse would probably have knocked the coin down a grade using the "old standards", & Naumann is still using the "old standards". I bought the coin pictured below from Harlan Berk many years ago as a V.F., & after getting slabbed it came back XF.

    IMG_1694.jpg Hadrian, Alexandria, Egypt.jpg

    Some grades like MS (mint state) can't be argued about regardless of when they were labeled, like the coin pictured below.

    Constantius I as Augustus, Ticinum (3).jpg
     
    Volodya, Sulla80, Limes and 6 others like this.
  10. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Nice coins, Al!

    I realize there has been inflation in grades. Many collectors of your, Doug’s and meadoraman’s generation quote the old standard, which is always (or at least usually..) interesting.
    However, as soon as AU and MS grades were introduced (through NGC?), no longer making EF the highest grade, this had to have an impact on the other categories. If we are to use the Sheldon scale (although without numerals), we’re used to an EF category that has far from perfect coins. I think the criteria for the old EF is in the AU territory now?
     
    DonnaML likes this.
  11. Sulla80

    Sulla80 Well-Known Member

    A beautiful coin - congrats, I also like this particular style Roma. My point of view on grading is simple: it is a very crude measure when applied to ancient coins, which are much better today served by high resolution photographs. There are so many variables of metal, style, wear, strike, toning, etc. that it isn't possible to encapsulate in a letter grade. These just give us a rough idea: would someone who has seen a lot of these consider this a stunningly beautiful, really beautiful, beautiful, or interesting coin?

    You can't go wrong in my view. However it is graded it is a small work of art, feat of ancient engineering, and reminder of history that somehow survived >2000 years...mine has a couple of scratches, some green encrustations, a little old dirt, is a bit off center - I grade it "Stunning" :)
    T Manlius Mancius .jpg
    Appius Claudius Pulcher, T. Manlius Mancius, and Q. Urbinius, 111-110 BC, AR Denarius (18mm, 4.00g, 12h), Rome mint
    Obv: Helmeted head of Roma right; circular device to left
    Rev: Victory driving triga right, holding reins; T.(MA). AP. CL. Q.(VR) in exergue
    Ref: Crawford 299/1b
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
  12. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    Definitely stunning:) Great patina!
    Although I understand the point that many of you are making about grading, I’m not sure if I agree.
    I think both our coins are quite obvious VFs. Not Fine, not Extremely fine, but in between.

    What would happen if we abolished grading, I wonder? I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take long before we had it back. We humans tend to need categories and sub-categories of all things. That’s probably how we ended up with such a complex language, compared to other living beings. :)
     
    DonnaML likes this.
  13. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Was this sold as an example of what I feel is the best die break in ancient coins? Compare it to mine. Boehringer 703 (v345/r481)
    g20430bb0480.jpg
    You can find these with a great deal more damage from the break and very little. I like mine because the strikers seemed to be tilting the die to lessen strain on the broken part resulting in a great strike on the lower right and almost none on the upper left.

    Actually, I agree with Valentinian. I believe grading does more harm to ancient coins as a hobby than it does good and we would be better off if no one applied their personal opinions as a letter. It takes a sentence or a paragraph to describe a coin meaningfully. NGC decided to use 'fine and friends' just to refer to wear and gave other ratings to two other factors. I could see a completely original system rating grading points that might be useful but that could involve ten added considerations rather than two. In any event, I consider wear one of the points of lesser value when rating a coin. Adopting the Sheldon scale for large cents makes no good sense to me but it is what we have in popular use so we deal with it.
     
  14. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    The tet wasn’t sold as «the greatest die break in history», no :) If it was, I would probably have gotten suspicious. :D (I got it for 50% of estimate with no other bids, so I have been googling and researching anyway.That always makes me a bit wary.)

    I can accept the arguments for not having a grading standard, or for having a different way of describing the grade of conservation. As mentioned earlier, I don’t think the first option would last. I imagine this discussion between two young numismatists 50 years from now:

    «This is my 12 Caesar set. I’m especially happy with the Nero den.»

    «Oh, that is one fine coin indeed! A very fine denarius!»

    «Yeah, thanks :) The other ones are fine too, but this finer than the rest. Like you say, very fine.»

    «I have been considering sorting my coins by how well conserved they are. You know, looking at wear and marks, and having those looking best on the first album pages. Or perhaps in boxes.»

    «That’s cool. Are you going to make, like categories? Like «awesome coins, great coins, nice coins, etc.?»

    «Yeah, exactly! But maybe a little more toned down categories. «Awesome» would be a little too pubertal. Maybe just «fine coins» and «very fine coins» and....»

    «Extraordinarily fine coins»

    «Yes! Or just «extremely fine.»

    «That’s an awesome idea. If you find really good criteria for the categories, you could publish it. Become a famous numismatist!»

    «Yeah:) It could be a way to make money too. Maybe there are collectors that would want us to categorize their collection?»

    Etc, etc. I think we have to deal with coin grading, and the fact that we don’t always agree over it.
     
    Marsyas Mike likes this.
  15. IdesOfMarch01

    IdesOfMarch01 Well-Known Member

    Until very recently (ca. 2005 and later) many catalogs contained only the description of coins and not necessarily a picture of the coins. If you wanted to acquire a coin from a dealer, or at an auction, where you couldn't view the coin in hand, how would you make an assessment that the coin was in the condition you found acceptable?

    This is especially problematic for ancient coins, since no two ancient coins are truly alike. Thus an approximate, subjective, but useful grading system was created to facilitate the sale and auction of ancient coins without the necessity of physically imaging every coin being offered.

    Flash forward to today: every coin that's being offered is accompanied by some sort of picture. Usually the picture is more than sufficient to make an informed purchase decision -- for most dealers and auction houses offering coins, the only way to get a better idea of the coin's condition is to view it in hand.

    For me, this has rendered ancient coin grades to be a curiosity (yes, I'm curious about the grade) but nothing else. If the coin's picture and description were not accompanied by an estimated grade, it would make no difference whatsoever in my evaluation of whether or not to acquire the coin. Even if the picture isn't well composed or exposed, an accompanying grade would not provide enough additional information to make a purchase decision -- in this case I would have to view the coin in person or have my dealer view the coin and evaluate it.

    If part of your purchasing decision involves the investment/future value of the coin, then it's understandable that a coin's grade might enter into your purchase decision. This is not the case for my personal collecting interests.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
    Volodya, DonnaML, Limes and 4 others like this.
  16. AncientJoe

    AncientJoe Well-Known Member

    I was in the process of writing this same reply but @IdesOfMarch01 beat me to it. A large part of why I lost interest in collecting US coinage was because the conversation moved away from the coins themselves and just into the grades.

    Dealers and collectors constantly talk about how their coins are undergraded - it's infuriating: talk about the coins, not the grades! It's equally frustrating to hear about PCGS vs NGC vs CAC vs ABC vs DEFG.

    And then they complain when "grade-inflation" happens but clearly the grading services are just monetizing the fact that everyone wants their coins in a higher holder. Soon it'll be a 100-500 scale instead of 1-70.

    I understand and appreciate grading as an extra layer of authenticity verification and a check against unscrupulous dealers but the US side of the market has taken it to the n-th degree where everyone is just trading barcodes and I hope ancients don't follow suit.
     
  17. svessien

    svessien Senior Member

    As a collector of modern coins, I know what you mean. I haven't bought a Norwegian coin in over 5 years, because of the constant price and grading pressure. That market is for wealthy people now, and I'm not one of them.

    So, let's talk about the coin instead. I have been trying to figure out who this Appius Claudius was, and who C. Pvlcher, striking coins at the same time in the same style, was, after reading Dougs thread from 2017:

    Starting with the first coin, Sydenham writes that the Q VR on the reverse letters have been interpreted to be Q. Urbinus, but that this "almost certainly" is meant to be "Quaestores Urbani", which would mean that Claudius and Mallius were striking at quaestors at the time. Sydenham dates the coin to 106 BC. He later goes on to say that "little is gained by speculating."
    Crawdford on his end, compares the lettering to the Narbo issues 10 years earlier, stating that the lettering on the #299 coin is similar. The fact that they appear in different order with different dies for the same issue, strengthens Crawfords theory.

    Sydenham dates the C.Claudius Pulcher coin to 106-05 BC. He does so because he finds it reasonable, as CCP held higher offices from 99-92 BC (Consul in 92). Crawford argues that the similarity to the obverse style of Porcius Laeca makes it "plausible to assign them to the same year".

    I find different birth years for Appius Claudius, or at lest the Appius Claudius that I suspect we are talking about. Wikipedia states 129 BC, which would make him a young moneyer in 110 BC. Other sources say 139 BC.
    https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629

    C.Claudius Pulcher is, according to Sydenham, "one of the moneyers whose magistrates have been recorded." According to Geni, his birth year was 136 BC, but these are not the most reliable sources:
    https://www.geni.com/people/Gaius-Claudius-Pulcher-up/6000000041170600841

    Looking at the gens Claudia, it looks to me like the two were brothers, Appius and Gaius, and that Appius was the father of the infamous Publius Clodius. They were also the brothers of Claudia-Pulchra, wife of Gracchus.

    No matter the grade, we're deep into Roman history here.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
    DonnaML likes this.
  18. El Cazador

    El Cazador Well-Known Member

    @Al Kowsky I know you will appreciate this one (I have a privilege of owning a piece of Hermanubis collection): Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 11.04.56 AM.png
     
  19. Limes

    Limes Well-Known Member

    I completely agree. As every auction house and seller is able to show photo's of coins, pictures are my only way to judge whether or not I would bid on a coin.

    Take for example the coin below. To me its a beauty, because of the flowlines and the 'softness' of the portrait. Its magical how I get drawn into it, because of this. These charactaristics showed on the photo's of the auctioneer. Should it be graded a very fine? Or extremely fine? It does not matter to me, because this one scores high on my pretty-scale: it's one of the prettiest coins I have in my opinion. I don't know how to say it otherwise; it just has 'the thing' for me :)

    23.3.png
     
    Sulla80, akeady, Bing and 3 others like this.
  20. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    I agree completely as well. Grades were obviously necessary back when catalogs listed ancient coins without photos. I think photos accompanying descriptions were already widespread by the time Ebay began in the late 1990s. I know that Seaby's Numismatic Circular was accompanying all of its ancient and other coin listings with photos no later than 1999 (when the oldest issues I have were published), although I'm almost certain that in the 1980s it was still using descriptions and grades only.

    Now, I rarely pay much attention to the grades, except with certain old-fashioned dealers who still appear to grade conservatively. (In my experience, the grade inflation is worse in France than anywhere else.) There are some dealers who don't even bother using grades anymore. I am happy to make a buying decision based entirely on the photos and written descriptions.

    And I also agree that there are few things more excruciatingly boring than discussions of whether a coin deserves a grade of MS-63 or MS-65, and the like. I fervently hope that kind of discussion never penetrates this forum.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
  21. Al Kowsky

    Al Kowsky Well-Known Member

    El Cazador, That's a great looking Tet, excellent strike & centering, attractive patina, artistic die work, & great provenance :D! You should be happy with it :cool:.
     
    El Cazador likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page