How Worn Will You Go?

I don't have much reservations on wornness and quality if the price is low enough, I mainly collect for the history and connection so I do like wear on a lot of my pieces. All of that being said, the coin below has got to be one of my least favorite ancients I own. I bought it for $5 or so because I liked that it was a single year issue, 100 BCE, and I liked the price. In hand, however, it's quite disappointing and the wear around the lips of the bust looks almost cartoonish to me. I still think the $5 was a fair deal though. I forget who, but another CoinTalk user has one of these coins in much, much better condition. It's neat to compare the same coins in drastically different conditions.

Roman Republic
100 BCE
L Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus & Q Servilius Caepio
AR Denarius | 3.29 grams | 19mm
Obv: PISO CAEPIO Q, head of Saturn right, harpa behind; wreath above
Rev: AD FRV EMV EX SC, the two quaestors seated left between 2 grain ears
Ref: Crawford 330.1a // Syd 603​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a nice coin @David Atherton. I like the history behind it as well.

The answer to this question is related to desirability of a certain type (or emperor) and the money I can spend. When it comes to e.g. Caligula, this is the result:

 

A little wear has never bothered me, although if it obscures important details I generally will pass on it. In a few cases, a coin is so rare, that a choice unworn example would cost either more than I have or more than I'm willing to pay for the type. My primary collecting theme is early Roman Republican coins of the denarius system. I recently acquired this "helmet" symbol denarius, RRC 168/2, to bolster my collection. It is probably the most worn coin in my collection. I bought it because the symbol is clear, and I'm unwilling to pay $2-3K for a choice example if one ever comes on the market again.

 

This is how low I will stoop.

I have no problem with worn, even worn beyond recognition, as long as the result has a certain charm. In this case, I believe I would like the coin less if I could recognize the host. As it is, it's just an anonymous coin that serves as the bearer of the countermarks. The archetypal idea of a coin rather than something defined. I like it.

 

Here is one of my more worn Kushans, zeno #246526. Something about these coins appeals to me, dates back to approximately 220-250 AD.

 

Hi @ZoidMeister,

Sorry, I’m pretty sure The last one is a fake.

 

You passed the test . . . . .although you should have said, "I'm damn sure . . . . "

Just seeing if everyone is awake. What, no love for magnetic 21st Century souvenirs . . . . . . ?

I think it may have come from a museum "kids information board." It's not even that worn . . . .

Z

 

When it comes to ancients, I'm much more willing to overlook a coin's overall condition than most modern coins. After all, it isn't easy having the budget of a college student. In the case of most ancient coins such as this Nero As, I'm more interested in a coin that is attributable and with a decent portrait. However, in the case of 3rd and 4th-century Roman Imperial coins, I'd be more likely to emphasize condition due to the abundance of certain issues. Although, I'm sure most of you hold a different definition of what makes a decent coin and portrait.

Nero
Æ As
65 A.D.
Obverse: NERO CLAVD CAESAR AVG GER P M TR P IMP P P, laureate head right
Reverse: S-C, Victory flying left with shield inscribed SPQR.
Rome
Diameter: 26.0mm
Weight: 9.16 gr.
RIC 314, Sear 1976

Obverse:



Reverse:

 

This 'Barbadoes' penny is rather worn yet still easy to identify. Got it cheaply too.

 

I am also a modern coins collector (or used to be, as ever since I discovered ancient coins there seems to be no coming back).
I simply don't like UNC coins. The minimum grade for modern coins I accept is F but I have just a few coins in XF condition or bette, rest of them mainly VF and everything is OK for me.

As for ancients, being a beginner, I accept worn coins without issues, as long as they can be identified without doubts. All I want is the coin to look OK for me. And I still have the goosebumps when I realize that coin in my hand was used by someone who could have been an ancestor of mine.
Examples of modest quality coins in my collection


I identified it as
Trajan AR Denarius, RIC 319, RSC 154c, BMC 581


Trajan Denarius. IMP CAES NER TRAIANO OPTIMO AVG GERM DAC, laureate, draped & cuirassed bust right / P M TR P COS VI P P SPQR, Fortuna seated left with rudder & cornucopiae, FORT RED in ex.
The coin is slightly better in hand but still very worn.
From a lot of "bronze coins" - thank you.



Same lot. I like this coin very much - my first sestertius.

Obverse IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII
Reverse FELICIT PVBLIC S C
RIC 143




As you probably guess, same lot.


Magnentius, Arles, AE3. DN MAGNENTIVS P F AVG, bare-headed, draped, cuirassed bust right, A behind head / VICTORIAE DD NN AVG ET C[...], two Victories holding shield inscribed VOT V MVLT X, C in four lines. IS in lower centre. Mintmark PAR. RIC VIII Arles 181; Sear 18822.

Now some coins that will arrive in a day


MYSIA. Pergamum. Germanicus & Drusus (Caesares, 14-19). Ae. Struck under Tiberius.
Obv: ΓEPMANIKOΣ KAIΣAP.
Bare head of Germanicus right.
Rev: ΔPOVΣOΣ KAIΣAP.
Bare head of Drusus right.
RPC I 2367.

I thought this was a rare coin and studied about it only after I won it but I don;t mind at all.



I think this is Commodus,

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4/7378
Loved the colors, not sure if they are natural.


A 30 mm Otacilia Severa from Cilicia

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/type/3230

I don't like extra worn 4th century coins and I don't like them generally speaking.

 

Vespasian AR denarius, plenty of honest wear on it.

 

I'm admittedly a condition snob, but this is how worn I have gone because the opportunity to own another one, much less one better, is iffy. An exceptional rarity issued by Brutus.



Brutus. AR Denarius (3.75g, 1h, 19mm) Military mint travelling with Brutus in Lycia, early Summer 42 BC. Obv: Head of Apollo right, his hair in ringlets and bound taenia and laurel wreath. Rev: trophy composed of helmet, cuirass and two shields; one of which has incurved sides (figure of eight), two captives, male and female, seated back to back at base, both in attitude of despair. Crawford 503/1, Syd 1293, Sear CRI 204, BMCRR East 52, Babelon Junia 35, Cohen 8.

 

L Papius Denarius Serratus, Papia 1, Sym. var. RRC 99

Obv:– Head of Juno Sospita right, wearing goat skin tied under chin. Behind head, Funnel strainer.
Rev:– Gryphon running right; in ex., L. PAPI.; in field, hydria (two-handled vase).
Minted in Rome from . B.C. 79.
Reference(s) – RSC Papia 1. RRC 384/1. RCTV 311.
Symbol variety – RRC 99. Babelon unlisted. BMCRR 99.

 

400-344 BC Greece - Thessaly Lamia AR 1/2 drachm, ex BCD collection

 

I do not have a reference on the matter but I believe that very common fake was originally glued to a paper illustrating a book on the subject of one of its two very different sides. The portrait is copied from Constantine the Great and could illustrate a book on Rome or early Christianity while the reverse is copied from a common variety of 1st century AD Widow's Mite and would illustrate a book on the Holy Land or New Testament. Since one side or the other was to be glued down, it made no difference that the two were mismatched by 300 years. Perhaps the makers underestimated the number of people who would throw away their advertising paper but peel off the coin which then entered the collections of people who did not know real from impossible. I am not sure when these were made but I believe they are more recent than the other advertising glue downs copying Gela that were used by Readers' Digest fifty years ago. I would enjoy seeing either of these items still attached to their original publication.

 

Yep, in this case I do not give a hoot about condition. Just having an Eid Mar denarius would be amazing.

 

I wouldn't exactly call myself a condition snob, because I can't really afford to be one. But I do like to buy ancient coins -- specifically, Roman Republican and Imperial coins -- that are at least in "very fine" condition in terms of wear, with decent strikes and centered well enough that most of the images, and at least some of the legends, are on the flan. (I put Roman Provincial coins from Alexandria on a different scale entirely in light of how crude many of them are and always were. If I weren't willing to settle for anything less than "very fine" condition, I would have hardly any Alexandrian coins at all given my budget.) Rarity doesn't really cause me to lower my standards. I don't care how rare a coin is; if I don't think it's appealing to look at, I don't want it. I'd rather spend the money on more common coins that look better.

I accumulated more than enough extremely worn 19th- and early 20th-century British pennies and halfpennies as a teenager to get my fill of coins that look like that. Even though I was content with them at the time.

This is probably the most worn non-Alexandrian coin I've bought in a while. The dealer described it as being in "Fine" condition, but, given how much I like animal coins -- and the fact that this type isn't so easy to find -- I'm perfectly happy with the way it looks:

Titus Caesar (son of Vespasian). AR Denarius 77-78 AD. Obv. Laureate head right, T CAESAR VESPASIANVS (counterclockwise from lower right) / Rev. Sow standing left with three piglets, two standing below her and one behind; in exergue, IMP XIII. RIC II.1 986 (Vespasian) (2007 ed.), RSC II 104, Sear RCV I 2443, BMCRE 227. 18.5 mm., 3.17 g.

 

..haha..no, it ain't....