preference: decrepit great rarity or EF common coin?

I strongly doubt that collectors who are looking for top condition are encouraging tooling and other forms of alterations. Instead, if anything it should be collectors who are willing to compromise on condition for rarity that may encourage this kind of behaviour. Collectors who look for top condition are the least tolerant of any kinds of alterations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There are countless examples of such alterations. Carving or enhancing worn legends, smoothing corroded surfaces, plugging holes - all for collectors who want looks over authenticity. Just few weeks ago it was a story about Ukrainian aurei with holes, for example.

 

Sometimes it virtually impossible to find a

Very true/ but experienced collectors ONLY deal with trusted auction houses like ones on sixbid/ where all of these problems are pointed out/ or altered/ damaged coins are not featured in their auctions.

 

Depends on type of the coins. Imperial or Greek I agree, auctions are usually good in disclosing alterations. But in provincial, particularly Judaean, alterations are so common it is hard to find a coin that was not worked on. I have personally examined all provincial coins of the Triton that just ended, and found out that very significant fraction of the coins had 'improvements'.

 

Thanks for explanation, always learn new things here

I have no experience in Judean/ Provincials (except for Kings of the Bosphorus EL/AV Staters)
I also know from Heritage "Paramont Sale" many of the European rarities ie: 25/ 30 Dukaten etc. some had grafitti etched on surfaces to denote value/ these still sold for BIG $$$$.

 

I'm late to this party.

I have a one-per-ruler Roman collection. I don't have any more coins to collect in presentable condition that can be bought for under four figures. In the past, I've accepted decrepit condition, and been so dissatisfied that i've sold the coin quickly.
So at a minimum, a coin needs to be in Fine condition. Generally, I like a little bit of wear - it reassures me the coin has circulated and probably isn't a toolie. If i'm spending four figures, the coin has to be beyond reproach.

Would i prefer a spectacular common coin? It depends on what you mean by "common"? I'm not really in the league of @AncientJoe where I can call an EID MAR denarius common. Common coins, to me, are the AE3/4s of Constantine and his family, and I don't have a lot of interest in these. That said, I would LOVE to own a spectacular example of one of these "not rare" high-demand classics:
- Athens Owl tetradrachm
- Julius Caesar portrait
- Marc Antony / Cleopatra denarius or drachm
- Cleopatra 80 drachma
- Augusta/Agrippa crocodile Nemausus as

 

I think we have a different perception of "spectacular common coins" and "decrepit rarities". In my view, a "spectacular common coin" is never tooled, smoothed or in any other significant way altered. If it is, it is by definition not a "spectacular" coin.

A "decrepit rarity", on the other hand, is, by definition, aestheically unattractive, but still recognizable as a coin of which only very few remain.

 

Athenian owls and Nemausus crocodiles are very common, yes. But coins with portraits of Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra are much rarer, let's say they are scarce. For a reason I cannot explain Athenian owls are overpriced. There are thousands on the market... For the Nemausus crocodile, you can always find bargain specimens...

 

In my collecting areas I am always chasing after examples that I don't currently have in my collection. I will accept these in any condition, they just have to exist and be identifiable. Obviously I will also accept them if they are spectacular but that doesn't happen very often.

None of these is spectacular in any way but they are informative.

As one of my focus areas I collect the short legend oddities of the eastern COS II series of Septimius Severus.

One obverse die has the legend "IMP CA L SEP SE-V PER AVG COS II". I have four examples of this die. The fourth example could certainly qualify as decrepit but there is enough there for me to match the obverse die. It is a reverse type not previously known to me for this die. I am attempting to perform some die analysis to link coins within this series and also to connect them with coins from the longer legend series. This will hopefully allow me to make some suggestions about where these coins fit in the overall eastern output which is currently based on very loose assumptions.

I am also willing to gather double die matches (see coins 2 and 3) as this also helps in attempting to build a relative strike chronology. The wear patterns are not always circulation wear but die wear. On these coins I think that there is progressive die wear to the obverse die (seen between coins 2&3). Coin 4 has a similar level of die wear to coin 2 and so we could assert that it was struck before coin 3. If I can then overlay other die links and track down other examples either in my own collection or other collections then a bigger picture emerges.

In summary for some coins they simply have to exist for me to want them otherwise why would anyone in the world want something like coin 4?

 

For serious numismatic research there is of course no way past "decrepit rarities". I'm not a serious numismatic researcher, and I derive most of the pleasure from the aesthetic value and historical interest of my coins.

 

My collection is based on eye-appeal (not, for me, the same thing as condition, necessarily) and price.

However, I do occasionally pursue something because of the rarity. A recent example is this cruddy denarius of Commodus, which I bid aggressively on because of its type. My self-justification for this being: I really like the coins of Commodus, which means I really like his self-aggrandizing types from late in his reign. Also, it is a somewhat scarce type. Finally, it was described as a denarius of Antoninus Pius on eBay - this sort of misattribution appeals to my bottom-feeding urges.

So here it is,


Commodus Denarius
(191-192 A.D.)
Rome Mint
[L AEL] AVREL [COM]M AVG P [FEL], laureate head right / SAL GEN HVM, Salus
standing left, holding serpent-entwined sceptre and raising kneeling woman.
RIC III 260 (Scarce); RSC 677; BMC IV 358, RCV 5693.
(1.71 grams / 16 x14 mm)
eBay Jan. 2022 $12.50

It is on a very small, light flan, and is much shinier than the photos show - it appears to be of reasonably good silver for the era. The portrait appealed to me - it has that late-Commodus bathos to it, I think.

So $12.50 seems reasonable, but it is a pretty poor specimen, and I never enjoy these kinds of purchases as much as the ones that appeal to me on appearance only.
One further note on prices: I've been reading the Coin Talk threads on crazy-high auction prices. This is noticeable on low-end stuff on eBay too - the most awful, common silver goes for much higher prices than a few years ago. A few years ago I could scoop up the occasional low-grade denarius for $15-20. Now that's about double and I stay away. Hoping those prices come down, or my salary goes up!

Also, @dougsmit has a nicer one here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/rare-commodus-sestertius.387291/

 

Lol. @Tejas - I am not a serious numismatic researcher. I am an enthusiastic amateur collector who is passionate about a largely under-researched area.

 

I even went against my goals of quality control, when I won this AV Goldgulden from my hometown of Julich. Sadly, its impossible to find them in MS. Most are horrible strikes/ badly worn dies/ inept mint workers So, better this GVF from Spink then nothing...

 

The kind of die-link-analysis you mentioned above sounds pretty serious to me, especially if you also collect the material for the analysis.

 

i would go for great rarity is more scare then the comon beauty coin i can buy that the other month to of the next month are coming ec

 

I like the rare stuff. It is silly to say condition doesn’t matter, it very much does and of course drives prices, but when dealing with such exquisitely rare items, it makes sense to be accepting of some problematic coins.

I guess it depends on how you collect. If you are collecting what you find aesthetically pleasing, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense to seek out rare but ugly coins. There are plenty of historic coins that do are readily available in appealing grades.

However, if you are putting together a set with a completion type goal (even if unachievable) like every Roman emperor, every British king, or every date/mm of silver dollar, then you ultimately run into this problem with the rarer ones. I am always more impressed with a collection that has many of the rarities than one with many holes, even if the rare coins aren’t in as great shape.

I posted this a few months back:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/wretched-rarities.390251/

 

I guess for me it would depend on the particular coins.
I'm still barely scratching the surface of ancient coin collecting, more interested in fine portraits and inscriptions even if they're common coins. Yet at the same time I would be happy to buy a decrepit EID MAR denarius if it was within my cost range.

But in general I have to say that currently, I am more interested in buying higher quality common coins than pursuing worn, obscure rarities. I suspect that many other beginners feel the same.

 

"decrepit great rarity or EF common coin?" We can make this a fairer question if we stipulate equal dollar value at the high end of some (your) buying range. I have lots of old catalogs and it is clear that, relatively, rarity used to have higher value than it does now. If someone had, in 1970, bought one great rarity in low grade for $1000 and one high-grade common sestertius for $1000, there no doubt the high-grade coin has gone up more, probably much more.

Long ago I thought 3 VF denarii were worth more to me than one EF denarius that cost what the three did in total. In terms of history and enjoyment, that is still be the way I think, but the market has changed to value that EF coin more.

I like top condition coins and avoid unattractive pieces, but more than many others I would enjoy a mid-grade rarity over a super-high-grade common coin of the same cost in covid times. That is, I think super-high-grade is relatively overvalued (although I realize the market does not, and will not, agree with me.)

 

Very true, a poll is second best. The true preferences have long been revealed by the development of market prices.

In a poll, the question would have to be specific. E.g. Do you rather buy one badly worn EID MAR denarius for USD 25'000 or 200 common but spectacular Constantinian folles? Or, do you rather buy one badly worn Iotapian Antoninian for USD 5000 or 50 comon, but spectacular Antoniniani of Claudius II or Probus. Luckily, personal preferences vary.