I posted the above on another thread but rather than making an inappropriate steal of that thread, I'll post the question here. It really is not just a Claudius question. I once was told by a Dr. masquerading as a coin dealer that the only Septimius Severus coins worth collecting were those of Rome from the last years (the corkscrew beard years). How do you feel about Claudius coins. I do not have a nice Rome coin; for that matter all my Claudius coins are second rate or below. Would you pay more 'all other things being equal' for standard style Rome coin than you would for an Iberian or a barbarous coin? Rome?: Nice style and surfaces but a tad worn: Iberian: Barbarous? brockage! Barbarous sestertius: Barbarous sestertius revalued to dupondius by countermark: Does someone have a really nice style and grade Claudius portrait bronze? If you disagree with the ID's of the mints above, please come forward.
Not a 'really nice grade' but it's an attractive portrait and it's from Rome. I think Bing has this same As. RIC 100
Sadly, my only Claudius coin is my only "known" forgery ... *sigh* Oh, but the seller refunded the cash once I showed him the David Sear assessment (*phew*) ... anyway ... the seller allowed me to keep the forgery, which I still think is pretty cool, for it is apparently potentially a 19th century forgery, which is still "pretty old" ...
Yes, but it is far from being "a nice Rome coin", but it has nice patina and, btw, I have it attributed as RIC 116 (?): CLAUDIUS AE As OBVERSE: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TR P IMP P P, bare head left. REVERSE: Minerva advancing right, holding shield and brandishing a javelin, S-C across fields Struck at Rome, 50-4AD 10.5G, 25MM RIC 116 To answer your question Doug, no, I would not. I find I favor the portraits on Iberian minted coins over Rome. But all things equal, I would pay the same for either and use the same criteria for selecting either.
My Claudius was minted in Rome. The patina is what drew me to this one. Don't have any Iberian mint coins...yet. Not sure that I would pay more for one though. There's something classic looking about the Rome mint coins imo. Claudius, 41-54 AD AE Dupondius, 29mm/11.3g; Rome Mint. Obv: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP. Claudius bust left Rev: CERES AVGVSTA, Ceres seated holding corn ears and torch, S C below. (RIC.I.94)
More? I would expect people to pay more for the Rome mint style and less for the Iberian and Barbarous. I see more of the last two than of the Romans but that may be because I see more junk coins and spend little time watching the stock of major dealers. Steve: Did Sear give any details on the fake (cast, fake dies, known maker, anything?)?
I don't have a Claudius coin...so I'm just going to buy the one I think is the prettiest for the buck. I really like the color on that Iberian coin...what the heck is that? "salmon"? I don't work at pottery barn or anything, but I have heard that is a color and not just yummy fish. TIF's has nice mix of detail and color also. But any of them could be the one I'd pick, depending on the price.
Rome for the win, at lest on these. I like the style much more, and would expect a higher price of a nice Rome mint Claudius.
This is the only other I have that I have pics of. I have had quite a few low grade ones, Rome, Iberian and Barbarous. $3-5 in price ($20 on ebay? lol) all in similar condition. I've gave away or traded most, but had I had them all still and you asked me my favorite, I'd pull out a Rome mint (regardless wether or not I new the mint).
=> no, not really ... Sear didn't give any details regarding the dies or maker ... he merely gave his opinions/findings (I have attempted to include a couple of photos of his assessment ... but sadly, my photo-skills are not exactly top-notch)
CLAUDIUS 41 - 54 A.D. AE As (9.41 g.) Rome 50 - 54 A.D. RIC 113 TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP P P Bare head l. Rev. LIBERTAS - AVGVSTA S - C Libertas draped, standing facing, head r., holding pileus and extending l. hand CLAUDIUS 10 B.C. - 54 A.D. AE Sestertius (29.21 g.) Rome 41 - 54 A.D. RIC 99 TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP Laureate head right. Rev. SPES - AVGVSTA Spes, draped, advancing left, flower in right hand, raising skirt with left, S C in exergue Although it's somewhat subjective, portrait style is among the most important criteria when determining how much I'll spend on a coin. I rarely, if ever, see portraits from other mints whose style is at all comparable to Rome or Lugdunum. The above sestertius looks even better in hand than the picture, and the portrait style is among the best I've seen on a Claudius sestertius. I'm not really able to articulate better why I consider some styles "better" or "more artistic" than others, but when I get time I'll post some other examples.
Continuing this discussion, here are a couple of aurei (not mine) that sold last month at auction, which were minted in Lugdunum: The catalog description of these describes them variously as "... [an] attractive and powerful portrait..." and "An interesting portrait of Claudius..." Well, personally, I find these portraits at best somewhat bizarre, and downright ugly for the most part. They don't resemble most other portraits of Claudius and they just don't look as well executed to my eye. Compare them to these two that were struck at Rome: Admittedly, I'm biased since the last coin is in my collection, but I just think the portraits on these coins are superior pieces of art.
IMHO the last aureus has an excellent portrait style while the Libertas as seems like it was engraved by someone who believed Claudius was mentally defective. The others fall in between but, as you say, it is very much an opinion matter. The thing I really like about engraving of the period is the way they could render the transparent drapery, especially on the Spes sestertius. It is a very nice coin.
That's what I found most engaging about those two. Wow, the artistic skill required for rendering the sheer fabric!
TIF, have you treated the coin? It appears to be suffering from BD and may require a dip to prevent it spreading too far?
This Claudius dupondius just arrived in the mail and called to my mind this thread from earlier this year. The portrait style doesn't say Rome mint to me, but what do you folks reckon - Iberian or barbarous? And part from the surface corrosion, what can be said of the smooth, patched-up looking areas... is that filling of some sort? Some of the legend (particularly AVGVSTA on the reverse) also raises some questions... zealous cleaning, strengthening, tooling?
well, claudius certainly wasn't happy was he? i don't know Z, it does kind of look weird. reminds me of this modern russian denga i have.. smooth areas, corroded areas, patches with sharp details and patches worn down. stuff like that does just "happens". the experts here may tell you otherwise, if they do listen to them.
Z: I think that is a Spanish style portrait similar to this: CLAUDIUS AE As OBVERSE: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TRP IMP P P - Bare head left REVERSE: CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI - Constantia standing left, raising hand and holding spear; S C across fields Struck at Spain, 42/3AD 12.7g, 25mm RIC111, BMC201, S1858
I do think the portrait styles of your coin and mine are very similar. Maybe this style lacks the finesse of some of the Rome mint coins, but I'm quite partial to it.
