One more Emperor for the collection

So I think by now everyone knows that I often participate in Heritage Auction's weekly Ancients auctions.

I try to pay 80% of what previous coins of equal condition sold for so that with the buyer’s premium I am still getting a fair deal.

I bid on ALOT of stuff this week but unfortunately I only won one coin because of how I only bid 80%.

But I really like it so I'm okay with that ^_^.

This is now my oldest Emperor taking the spot from Trajan.



Domitian, as Augustus (AD 81-96). AR denarius (18mm, 3.31 gm, 5h). NGC AU 5/5 - 2/5. Rome, AD 88. IMP CAES DOMIT AVG-GERM P M TR P VII, laureate head of Domitian right / IMP XIIII COS XIIII CENS P P P, Minerva standing facing, head left, thunderbolt in right hand, spear in left, shield behind her leaning against her legs. RIC II.1 580.

I wonder why NGC gave it a 2/5 for surface? I feel like it's a solid 3. Yeah it has some hairline scratches but I don't think it's that bad for such a small coin.

What do you guys think? Is it a decent coin?

Oh yeah and share your Domitian's here if you want! Not just denarii but any coin of Domitian.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The top photos look like Ch XF. Nice high relief portrait .

 

Congratulations for acquiring a new emperor in your collection.
I bought my first Domitian last Christmas - I like this coin.


Thrace. Sestos. Domitian AD 81-96.
Bronze Æ 16 mm., 3,84 g
ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ-ΝΟϹ ΚΑΙϹΑΡ, laureate head of Domitian, right / ϹΗϹΤΙWΝ, lyre
RPC II, 359, Cop 948, Moushmov 5542

One of the 2021 goals was to add Domitian Imperial coins.



20 mm 3g, AD 87
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P VII, head of Domitian, laureate, right / IMP XIIII COS XIII CENS P P P, Minerva advancing right, holding spear and shield
RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 517 , Old Ric II Domitian 100, RSC 228. From the Tareq Hani collection


One from the times he was Caesar


Domitian (Caesar, 69-81) AR Denarius, Rome, 77-78
CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS - laureate head right
Rev: COS V - Soldier on horseback rearing right, raising right hand.
RIC 957 (Vespasian); C 49a
Old RIC 242
2,57 g, 18 mm

My favorite Domitian, looking very nice in hand



Domitian AD 81-96. Rome
As Æ
27 mm, 10,73 g
RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 707
Old RIC 394
AD 90 - AD 91
Obverse Legend: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM COS XV CENS PER P P
Type: Bust of Domitian, laureate, right
Reverse Legend: FORTVNAE AVGVSTI S C
Type: Fortuna standing left, holding rudder and cornucopiae

And one with an unusual reverse, was very glad for getting this one



Domitian AD 81-96. Rome
Denarius AR
18 mm, 2,62 g
RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Domitian 791
Old RIC 194 (s) C. 294; BMC 237; CBN 210.
Date Range: AD 95 - AD 96
Obverse Legend: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P XV
Type: Head of Domitian, laureate, right
Reverse Legend: IMP XXII COS XVII CENS P P P
Type: Minerva, winged, draped, helmeted, flying left, holding spear in right hand and round shield on left

Even if I don't buy expensive coins, it's getting difficult for me to get new rulers as the ones that are missing are quite expensive.
Tomorrow I will get a coin with a rare member of Flavian family, also closely connected to Domitian - Julia Titi.

 

I like the sharp portrait on this as of Domitian, with Moneta on reverse:

And this provincial bronze from Caesarea Maritime in Judaea is sometimes considered a Judaea Capta issue, though there's some dispute about that, as I explained in my initial write-up ( https://www.cointalk.com/threads/judaea-capta-of-domitian.301534/ ):

 

NGC is hard on scratches and I am surprised they did not put a word on the slab that would have scared off even more bidders and made it cheaper for you. I consider their hardline in this case appropriate since being in a slab makes it harder to see some scratches and make scrubbing less offensive. I do think they needed to base their numbers on a ten scale rather than five because the amount of area covered by 2/5 is pretty huge. My Minervas will never grade above fine which is the way I like it. Judging from CT posts over the last decade, there must be a hundred more variations on this reverse. Domitian like Minerva.

This last is fourree. I am always fond of fourrees with a good seam and minimal core.

 

Nice Domitians!

Oh yeah I know the scratches are the reason but I just feel like they aren’t so bad as to deserve a 2. They just look worse when zoomed in and enlarged. To the naked eye they are barely visible.

I feel like especially with Ancients there should be some leniency like there is with cleaning. Apparently most ancients came out of the ground and were subject to some sort of cleaning prior to being slabbed but NGC does show leniency in not marking every Ancient as “cleaned”.

Idk maybe I’m wrong and any scratching whatsoever is automatically a 2.

 

Concerning the original coin and the 2 surface grade, the coin has some fairly long and deep scratches, there are some issues on the neck, and the obverse had been a bit overcleaned. For an AU coin, the surfaces were below average in our opinion. Had the coin been a F or VF, it may have gotten a 3 surface. The higher the grade, the tougher we are on surfaces, as lower grade coins are expected to have some issues.

Barry Murphy

 

Fair enough, I’m just curious though if it’s so badly scratched up why didn’t NGC put “scratches” on it like this one of the exact same grade? Everything they do has a reason so I’m curious what the reason for that is.

I am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational I am just genuinely curious so I can learn.

See this one has “scratches” on it.


But mine doesn’t.



Oh and how come you said “in our opinion”? Did you grade this coin or work for NGC?

 

WOW! That one looks great!

I am surprised it’s only CH VF because it looks about equal to mine. Unless I’m missing something (which I usually am).

Well hopefully even with the 2/5 surface and the scratches I didn’t overpay for it.

To be honest I still think it looks just fine even with a couple scratches. It is an ancient afterall and when a coin has been around almost 2,000 years sometimes these things happen.

 

I have a genuine question about this discussion regarding the surface grade that your coin received.

Specifically, if the surface grade had been higher -- say, 3/5 -- would you have found the scratches to be more acceptable? Would they have been visually less obtrusive? Would you have a higher opinion of the coin?

My curiosity is piqued by the fact that you can evaluate the coin's appropriateness for your collection independently of NGC's grade. It's well centered both obverse and reverse; it's sharply struck and the legends are 100% readable and completely on the flan; Domitian's portrait is reasonably artistic. It appears to be a bit overcleaned and the scratches are obvious -- probably from the over-zealous cleaning -- but nothing is hidden. These would be sufficient to evaluate the acceptability/unacceptability of the coin for my collection, which causes me to wonder about what additional criteria you're considering when deciding to purchase a coin.

Again, a genuine curiosity, not a poke in the ribs.

 

Here is a Sestertius:

 

Well the reason I said that is because I’m trying to learn how NGC comes up with these numbers.

If it had been given a 3 I would’ve understood since I’ve seen other coins with a 3 that (to me) looked about equal.

But the coins I’ve seen with a surface grade of 2 have really been beat up badly with like water damage and corrosion and whatnot but this one doesn’t look as bad as those.

I know it has several scratches but I didn’t think they were too bad and I figured NGC agreed they weren’t too bad when they chose not to put the “scratches” designation under the surface/strike grades.

It’s all just curiosity so I can understand why it got a 2.

However Barry Murphy did make a good point about higher graded coins being held to a higher standard and that if it was F/VF it might have gotten a 3 so I think that’s what confused me. I’ve been considering strike & surface grades to be graded the same regardless of the overall grade and I was wrong about that.

 

Barry Murphy and David Vagi are NGC's two ancient coin experts.

 

Oh wow. Ok well in that case they know a lot more than I do and the best thing to do would be to listen to what they say.

I don't want my questions to sound like I am arguing with what he says. I just ask questions so I can learn. I think sometimes it sounds like I am arguing when people are trying to teach me but it's just my attempt to understand.

I know that I am still a newbie and these guys are experts in the field and trying to argue is like a 1st grader trying to argue with a Ph.D graduate. But at the same time there is nothing wrong with a 1st grader asking a Ph.D graduate questions to try to learn.

 

Going by the pictures, the “2” surface rating might be because the piece is lightly polished. The portrait looks shiny to me, not like a brass button, but not the usual frosted or more subdued luster look on a higher grade ancient silver pieces.

 

You’re referring to the obverse right?

It’s true the obverse does look a bit over cleaned but the reverse looks like all my other AU denarii in terms of luster & appearance.

 

Yes.