Assessing the entire coin

I'm very happy to have added a coin which easily ranks among my favorites.

Ancient coins are very rarely perfect and very often rare so weighing factors can become challenging when deciding what to buy. It's a judgement call and very much dependent upon taste.

I recently purchased this coin of a type that has been on my wantlist for years. I've admittedly always planned on buying the far more common variety but when the opportunity struck for this type, I couldn't let it go.

That said, it wasn't a straightforward decision as I personally try to avoid coins with scrapes on them and this is an expensive piece. However, weighing all factors, I convinced myself to go for it:

In the "Pros" column:
- Style (this obverse portrait is significantly more dramatic than the lower-relief/more common variety)
- Rarity (this is one of roughly five in private hands, 11 known in total including museums)
- 100+ year Pedigree (Ex. de Guermantes, Ex. Jameson, Ex. Grand Duke Alexander Michailovitch, the latter of which is particularly meaningful as the coin's originating region is part of Russia today)
- Centering and Luster (atypically nice for the issue)

Cons:
- A scrape (I lotviewed the coin in 2016 and passed then because of it)

Ultimately, the scrape isn't the coin's fault and could have very easily happened some time in the coin's collected history (perhaps the Grand Duke accidentally dropped it at one point).

So, thanks to some very helpful friends' lotviewing and encouragement, it found its way into my collection.



Pantikapaion Stater (Gold, 9.09 g 2), c. 350. Head of bearded Pan with goat’s ear and unkempt hair to left. Rev. Horned griffin, with its head facing and a spear in its mouth, standing to left on stalk of wheat. Gulbenkian 580. Jameson 2144 (this coin). Prinkipo 166. SNG BM 855. Extremely rare. With a head of Pan of remarkably fine style and delicacy. Minor scrapes on the obverse, otherwise, extremely fine.

From the de Guermantes collection, and from those of R. Jameson, 2144, and the Grand Duke Alexander Michailovitch.

In 2019, I was an underbidder (several bids away from winning) on another example of the type which ended up selling for about 3x what mine cost when it previously sold. It doesn't have anywhere near as long of a pedigree (1985) and it still has numerous reverse field pock marks and a lack of luster.



All things considered, I prefer my coin but it goes to show how the market reflects personal preferences and that some people will just avoid a coin if it has the wrong problem for their taste. Is the 2019 coin worth an entire Eid Mar more than mine? It's hard to say but at least one person thought so.

I'd be interested in hearing your rationale and factors for coins: what types of problems are your "deal breakers" and what can you overlook?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Beautiful coin & the scrape doesn't bother me in the least. I also like yours more than the second, maybe because the obverse is better centered.

Being a budget collector, I have learned to tolerate almost every form of "problems" with ancients. So much so it's made me more tolerant to have problems on world coins as well, especially holes.

Scratches and cleaned coins didn't bother me, but holed coins did. But now I have several medieval and world coins that look like they were "touch pieces" and I find the holes have a history themselves. Heck, a few of my medievals have been bent at one time & have a crease from it, that doesn't bother me.

I will say the biggest deal-breaker is heavily tooled and broken/repaired coins. I can't fathom owning a coin that was broken or shattered, just to have it glued back together.

 

That is a wonderful coin. Congratulations!

I can live with a lot of problems with my coins. Most important to me, is does this coin move me? Does it «talk to me» about a time, a myth, an era, or whatever? If it does, it doesn’t matter with some roughness or graffiti or an edge dent.

I need to like the obverse, though. It’s the obverse that will be looking at me. This Bruttium didrachm is a good example. I love the obverse, and can live with the reverse:

 

A gorgeous piece of fantastic style!! I much prefer your example to the one you were an underbidder on. Yours just has “it.”

The “De Guermantes” collection was reportedly that of the famed French dealer Jean Vinchon who surely saw a number of these staters over the course his long career and I think there’s a reason he held onto this one!

For my own collection, I am very tolerant of minor marks and scratches, particularly where they are confined to the field, or else well-hidden by the design. In general “unintentional” defects really don’t bother me (scratches, flan flaws, scrapes, etc). I am far less tolerant of “intentional” alterations such as mounting, tooling, smoothing, etc. The closer these alterations come to the design of the piece, the more of a turn-off they become for me.

 

Wow, a wonder of articity and in top condition! I could overlook
the scratch, for it is in the field.

 

A scrape or any other type of imperfection I believe would depend on what is important about the coin to you. If its one side versus the other, that can make a huge difference. I posted my Irene coin last week that I bought in honor of my baby daughter:


It has a scrape or two on the reverse. However, my main goal was a well centered, perfect portrait of Irene. This is one of the best portraits of her I have ever seen before, so the scrapes on the reverse didn't bother me as much. Had they been on the obverse, I never would have considered the coin.

 

I overlook all issues if a coin is rare and the price is right.

If you want to get coins with very old provenance you must get used to scratches, scrapes, digs and edge cuts.

Here's my only ex-Jameson coin. You can notice similar issues.

 

The biggest deal-breaker for me is a rough surface, followed by centering problems. I'll put up with quite a bit of wear otherwise.

 

I keep moving up to higher grade coins. I think that @AncientJoe's example is spectacular and the scratch minor. One of my collecting foci for 2021 is Byzantine gold, but we'll see how it goes. I recently re-read John Julius Norwich's History of Byzantium and I have some of Professor Warren Treadgold's books, whom I took a class from back in the late 80's at Berkeley when he was in residence there. So my interest has been piqued.

 

Congratulations !!
I had the chance to have this coin in hand at the Nomos auction, it is a real gem and the scrap is just insignificant. Such "defaults" give personality to ancient coins.

 

I feel you are extremely lucky to have two shots in five years at a coin that only has five in private hands. I have a few coins that are rare in that ballpark and would be surprised to see one sell that often. We all have to make the decision as to which of the points you mention are deal breakers. I do not mind having the best known of a rare coin even if it is not high grade. It is like school kids who hope a test will be graded on the curve so they can hope to pass and still miss a lot of questions. The coin is quite attractive. What are the other three like? Surely all known are not perfect??? Of course there is always the question how we know how many of a coin there is. I knew people who had coins of merit who did not advertise the fact. They bought coins by private treaty. I always wonder if my coin I have owned for over 50 years is the longest tenured of its type or if there are half a dozen people out there that had theirs when I got mine.

 

Not exactly a dealbreaker, but more an example of having different preferences than other collectors. I'm seeing a lot of coins described as "as struck" or nearly so.


Here is an example of a coin listed as "virtually as struck"




"Struck from somewhat corroded dies and with some doubling on the obverse, otherwise, virtually as struck."

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a rich man, and for the right price, I would be perfectly happy to own this coin. Frankly, I kinda like coins with weird problems like this. But the idea that this coin should even be in the top 50% of sales prices for its type is silly to me. For my tastes, this is a bargain coin, not a coin one treasures because it is "virtually as struck" But I often see what I consider problem coins going for higher prices simply because they are "as struck" coins, as if a poorly struck coin that immediately went into the ground for 1,000 years is somehow superior to a slightly used coin with full, clear legends and images. Different strokes for different folks though and maybe I'm just the weird one

 

Yeah, love Norwich. His book on Venice is my favorite read of his.

 

What scratch?

 

Wonderful example @AncientJoe . And no I don't have any problem with scratches. Do you ???

 

Every time I look at a coin I have to make an assessment of what the coin is, how well does it fit into what I am trying to achieve, How important it is to the achievement of that goal, and of course cost. I generally like coins with few significant flaws though being that they are ancient coins the whole kaleidoscope of issues are always present. Perhaps it might be best to illustrate my thinking with a coin
Metapontion Ar Nomos 290-280 BC Obv Head of Herekles left club over far shoulder Rv Grain ear with leaf to left Johnson Class D 4.1 HGC 1067 This coin illustrated.7.95 grms 20 mm Photo by W. Hansen I will start off with its drawbacks. The coin was very expensive. That was about it for that. As for the plus side
1. Metapontion is one of the mints that I use in my seminars to illustrate the development of Greek coins. I have a number of coins from this mint ranging in date from 540 BC to 207 BC. Thus it fits very nicely among all my other coins from this mint.
2. this coin is an outstanding example of early Hellenistic Greek art.
3. Though it does have a few issues it is overall a problem free coin.
4. I saw the coin in hand and I thought it had a really strong presence.
So in total I found a number of reasons to purchase the coin which outweighed its negatives. I do this dance every time I decide that i am interested in a coin.

 

A spectacular coin! Congratulations on acquiring it.

The scratch doesn't bother me aesthetically. Assuming the photos are doing both coins justice I definitely prefer your coin over the 2019 one. But I probably wouldn't have bought it. I would be concerned that the scratch would come back to haunt me financially, and with that coin the risk is great (for someone of my means, anyway). If the coin were to be catalogued as "scratched" in a future auction, it could turn away some bidders and there are not many bidders available for that coin. If the coin were slabbed with a "scratched" designator, similarly that could really affect the resale value.

In the case where money was no object and I could own it 'till the end of my days without care of resale, I might reconsider.

 

Fabulous aquisition, AJ! The coin is incredible, and in the context of all its virtues, the scrape is even less than insignificant, IMHO.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much between the lines, but do you mean to say we can expect to see another EID MAR in your collection sometime in the future?

 

Wow! That's a great coin!

The scratch doesn't bother me at all. The only thing that would worry me is that, if I were a perfectionist, I'd stop enjoying the coin and ultimately only think about the scratch. I hope that you've already forgotten about it and can fully enjoy its stunning beauty. That portrait of Pan...And the toning...I didn't know 34-carat gold existed!

At the budget I have to work with, at times I have to look for the coin through its flaws. Seriously: I've come to accept flaws as part of the coin's history (as long as they are from use in its time), and as such find them not necessarily detracting, in some cases it actually attracts me to it. There are no rules, no rational considerations that determine if I like a coin. The only thing that matters is that it somehow speaks to me. Fortunately for me, sometimes a worn 20 or 200 Euro coin can speak as loudly and eloquently as a 5- or 10.000 or even more- Euro untouched treasure.

My only dealbreaker is tooling: a coin pretending to be something it's not.
Cheap make-up that makes a beautiful woman ugly.

 

Awesome coin. I actually had to look for the scratch, it's certainly not obvious.

For me, I put style first, followed by centering. I'm not as concerned with surface problems (within reason) as I probably should be.

I don't really have a list of what I want, see something I like and I go for it is how I have bought most of my coins. Mostly hits, but a few misses too.

Here's one I purchased a couple of years ago, which has a fairly significant scratch on Athena's cheek and some horn silver. The reverse is also slightly double struck. But I really love the coin and think it is a very good example of the type. (Plus I got my username from the denomination!).


Here's another with slightly rough/corroded surfaces, but once again, love the style and is very well centered. Both these coins were reasonably priced I think.




Nothing I have compares to the brilliance of the coin in the opening post however!!!