One more Emperor for the collection

But if that’s the case it only brings more questions. Again I’m not doing this to be argumentative or confrontational but to learn.

It brings the question: Why didn’t NGC label it as brushed or cleaned obverse? They graded it as problem free like they also didn’t put “scratches”.

If I recall correctly NGC does not guarantee authenticity but they do guarantee the grade so if I resubmitted this coin and they added the “scratches” then it means it was incorrectly graded the first time and eligible for the guarantee no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"Why didn’t NGC label it as brushed or cleaned obverse?"

The coin wasn't brushed and we don't label coins as cleaned as nearly all ancient coins are cleaned.

They graded it as problem free like they also didn’t put “scratches”.

By definition a coin with a 2 surface isn't problem free. In general, not always but usually, once we get below a 3 surface scratches and other issues get mentioned when they are less visible. If they are obvious from arms length they tend not to get mentioned anymore as the 2 or 1 implies that there are some serious surface issues.

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.

If you like the surface of the coin don't worry about the label grade. We handle 75-100,000 coins a year, and between the two of us Vagi and I have 70 years of experience in dealing with ancients, and in our opinion this coin has below average surfaces for an AU Domitian denarius. You are welcome to judge it how you see fit.

I’ve been considering strike & surface grades to be graded the same regardless of the overall grade

Strike grade is completely independent from overall grade (a 5 strike on a MS coin is the same as a 5 strike on a VG coin of the same issue) but the surface grade varies based on the overall grade. The more circulation a coin has seen, the more forgiving we are with general circulation marks. 2000 year old scratches, dings, porosity etc are expected on a coin in VF or G. Even at the high end, what is a 5 surface on a MS coin, might be a 4 surface on a ChMS coin.

You also can't compare surface grades on different types of coins. We are more lenient of surface porosity with Greek fractions then with Alexander tets, as Greek fractions almost always have some light porosity, and Alexander's don't. Likewise, Antioch tets of Trajan Decius almost always have some light granularity, so they can get a 5 surface with some minor surface issues, but a Septimius from Antioch with the same granularity would get a 4 or 3 surface as these often times come with really smooth surfaces.

Also, certain issues, like Aspendos staters, almost always come poorly struck, so what would be a 5 strike on an Aspendos, might be a 4 strike on another issue. Similarly, First Meris tetradrachms are almost always well centered, so what might seem like a slight shift in centering is actually significant on a First Meris tet resulting in a lower strike grade. A similar shift in centering on a Boetian stater, which tend to come slightly off center, would not get a deduction in strike. Another example within a specific series would be Severan denarii. There are some issues in the late 190's that always come poorly struck on short, incomplete flans. They get hit less hard for strike then would a Severan denarius from the 200's.

Hopefully this answers some of your questions.

Barry Murphy

 

Thanks for clarification . You have answered all my questions and I appreciate it!