Several years ago, when I began to be fascinated with early Roman Republican silver, I bought a small group of anonymous denarii at a large coin show. The first coin pictured was among them, and condition-wise was the best of the lot. At that point I was just learning about these early denarii and I attributed this coin as the fully anonymous Crawford 53/2. After some study, and after looking at hundreds of early denarii, I finally realized that the style was different from 53/2 and determined that this was actually RRC 57/2 – the early crescent symbol series. The crescent on this piece is obscured by the off center reverse (one can barely discern the bottom of the crescent just above and between the head of the Dioscuri). Still a beautiful coin and would certainly be graded at least EF by most cataloguers, but not a good representative of the type, with the all-important symbol off-flan. This coin, in spite of it’s overall beauty has bothered me for years and it has sensitized me about centering, an attribute I rarely compromise on nowadays. In the recent Bertolami sale I made a reasonable bid on the coin below and was awarded the lot. It is of course, not as high grade as my other example, but to me, it is a better example of the type. The reverse on this coin is also slightly off center but it really doesn’t obscure anything important, and although not the crispness of detail of an EF, I would suggest that a grade of good VF wouldn't be too controversial. Because this is a better representative of the type, I think this is an upgrade. What do you think?
Those are two very nice examples. The reverse on your first coin shows the horses rearing as they gallop forward, giving the feeling of motion. On your second coin the horses are at a more level steady gallop. Between the two I like the first coin for its dynamic depiction of the horses, very reminiscent of the horses pulling the quadriga on the coins of Syracuse and other Sicilian mints. I like the second coin for the better, more centered reverse and different style on the reverse. So, I like both! I guess that's why I have so many "duplicates".
@robinjojo indeed, the early Roman denarii dies were often masterfully engraved, and there is a broad spectrum of styles, some magnificent, some less so.
I really like them both. I like the gentle wear on the second one, and of course the “complete” reverse. Your first coin has some nice detail that pops out. But, you know me, condition is not my first concern when I choose my coins.
I have a soft spot for early republican denarii with Roma, and I truly think both of your coins are beautiful. I think the history of the period far outweighs the imperfect centering on your first coin. Great finds.
The "upgrade" is perfect! Both are wonderful coins, but the symbol is certainly a key component for an early denarius with symbols. Similar concessions are often necessary when collecting Roman Republican bronzes, which rarely come perfect anyway - an inconsistent strike or imperfect centering may be of little consequence when a bronze has a sharp symbol/monogram and good surfaces.
Me too! I would display them next to each other -- the obverse of the first, with the reverse of the second.
I have run into this problem on several occasions when buying at coin shows. The coin looks perfectly acceptable at the show but when I got home and researched a bit, the discovery of a missing device for one reason or the other ruins the coin for me. Realizing I do not buy mint state coins, I have to live with some shortcomings. Wear does not bother me. An example is this Fine COS IIII as of Antoninus Pius. I liked the surfaces, the style and the fact that the reverse face looked like Pius. When I discovered that the coin should have VOTA in exergue, the love affair was over. By my standards, the coin would be no better if there were no wear because I now know of the VOTA. Many coins in my collection are missing more legend than this but not all letters are equal in my mind. I strongly prefer the coin with the crescent.
Every ancient coin is a compromise. It is rare to find a coin that is perfect in every possible way. So naturally whenever I am looking at a coin with the intent to purchase I have to ask myself what is good and what is not so good. The more that I find that I like influences my desire to purchase.I think I would have to concur with those that prefer the second coin. The crescent may be a small feature but it is the key identifier that separates the Crawford 57 issue from all the others. So I would most likely give the first coin a pass. My Crawford 57/2 Ar Denarius RBW 218 Circa 207 B.C. 3.87 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen
I think @DonnaML nailed it with her comment! While I agree the new one is an upgrade given your collecting goals, keep the old one too for its fine style. Or you could try to poach @Terence Cheesman's. I have an ex Clain-Stefanelli 57/2:
