My 12 Caesars collection of small bronzes is missing (among others) a Tiberius as. There are two of these coins in upcoming auctions that might be candidates, and I thought it might be interesting to see how others evaluate these two coins. Note that Tiberius asses are relatively common, although they've been less than plentiful in recent auctions. Again, I'll specify my parameters for adding coins to my collection: (1) at least good VF but preferably EF condition, unless coin is very rare; (2) obverse portrait of Caesar must be of at least good style, better style is a plus; (3) minimal smoothing in fields and no tooling of any devices on the coin. Here's coin #1, partially described as "Wonderful green patina, struck on a narrow flan, otherwise good extremely fine;" Here's coin #2, partially described as "...aXF, brown patina:" I've had some preliminary discussion with my dealer regarding these two coins, but I'll wait until others have had a chance to post before revealing my dealer's comment(s) on them. Serious comments welcomed!
Two very nice coins. My observations: Coin #1 is missing some of the legend on the obverse, but has a strong legend on the reverse. Not only is the legend strong on the reverse, but the entire reverse is well struck. Coin #2 has the better portrait imho, with a better obverse legend. Although the reverse is not quite as strong. it's nearly as nice as coin #1 and includes some of the border which coin #1 does not. In all honesty, I would take either, but my preference would be coin #2 based more on your criteria for bust style.
I prefer #1. The bust of #2 is a bit closer in style to the ancient sculptures of Tiberius, and the laureate head is sharper, but the bust of #1 is by no means weak. In fact, it's quite good. I don't care for the shaved-off legend on the obverse of 2, and the reverse of 1 has a stronger strike. Also, I'm a sucker for those hard, forest-green patinas. So my vote is 1.
For my personal preference, I would probably go with #1. I like the reverse details more and the patina. Plus its better centered reverse wise. #2 does have a better bust, it shows the laural leaf more. But it wouldnt be enough for me to pick it over #1.
Not sure, but I agree with Doug in regards to no 1 (as well as repatinated, maybe ?). Would definitely with no 2 personally...
I particularly don't like the rudder on the first coin which has more an outline than a blade as usually seen. The diagonal bands on the second are wavy. Overall I doubt that both were done by the same hand but I'm not anywhere near expert enough to play with coins this high grade so I really can't say which letters are original and which are not. I tend to believe #1 is closer to original than #2 but both are just too 'nice' for me. I have not seen one of these that was this sharply struck but that is not surprising when you look at my poor coin (which is a year earlier anyway):
So, based on my criteria, my initial thinking on these two coins was: Condition: Both are EF or about EF, so this criteria is easily fulfilled. Portrait style: Arguably, the portrait style of coin #2 might be viewed as a little better, but it's close enough so that both of them exhibit good style and fulfill this criteria. Smoothing and tooling: Coin #1 exhibits what I (and my dealer) would consider some normal smoothing in the fields, but other than that, the coin is in a fairly benign state. However, even to my not-very-trained eye, coin #2 appeared just a little too sharp in both the legend and portrait areas. But I don't have the 30+ years of evaluating Roman bronzes that my dealer has, so I asked him his thoughts on this coin. His description of this coin? "Heavily tooled." Not surprisingly, the auction site makes no reference to the tooling of this coin that is so obvious to my dealer. As they said in ancient Rome, caveat emptor!
Thats probably the #1 reason why I dont collect the big bronzes. As beautiful as they are I have trouble telling what is tooled/smoothed and what isnt. Some is obvious like Caligula looking like jack nicholson but those are few. #2 is bronze disease... At least my pick of #1 in this thread was the smarter one.
Would be intersting to compare with coins of same dies (can't find any unfortunately). I would have been less surprised to read that no 2 is plain fake than "heavily tooled" :goof:
