Grading question

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by dougsmit, Mar 2, 2015.

  1. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    When applying a word grade to ancient coins is it appropriate to consider factors other than wear? Slabbers might assign a higher word but down grade the coin in terms of their strike or surface ratings. Some of us might drop a coin a grade or two as recognition that it has problems while others might prefer to use the higher word and describe the faults with a few words (or a paragraph).

    Take for example the coin the postman delivered today. The seller called it VF which suggests that they downgraded the unworn coin (at least EF) due to the unmentioned gashes (about ten of them if you look closely). I have no complaints about the coin because the faults were quite clear in the seller's excellent photo. I suspect that the only reason I won the coin was that other more picky collectors were driven off by the gashes even though they were not mentioned. How would you describe this coin?
    Very Fine (the dealer's answer)
    Extremely Fine but with several surface faults
    EF 5/5 strike 3/5 surface
    [​IMG]
    Someone will point out that there are only two grades: 'I want it' and 'No, thanks!. I did not have a Rome mint hut and this is a good looking coin even with the ten gashes. I suppose these are the ancient equivalents of bag marks on silver dollars so I should have offered the grade option of MS60.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. TIF

    TIF Always learning.

    Those are good questions and I have no answers, preferring the "I want it" and "No, thanks!" system instead.

    For the coin shown, I'd likely grade it higher and note the issues. There's no significant wear and the strike is remarkably deep. Legends are full.

    "AU, with scattered small gashes. Deep strike, excellent centering, full legends."

    If NGC graded this, wouldn't they note the gashes by way of downgrading the surfaces? Or do you think they'd just label it "genuine or whatever their preferred term is for coins not assigned alphanumeric grades?
     
  4. vlaha

    vlaha Respect. The. Hat.

    I hail from the colonial school of "price, don't grade." The reasons for this idea are similiar to those you just mentioned; it's hard to account for the all the factors in hand struck coins.

    I agree with TIF, the coin is a beauty. IMHO the gashes don't merit the down grade.
     
  5. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I don't recall seeing ancients refused or slabbed as 'genuine' for surface problems or cleaning issues the way a modern US coin would be. The color of this coin looks retoned rather like the color we see from the British Museum processed coins but I would never expect to see something like that mentioned for an ancient by anyone. We tend to accept retoning but draw the like at repatination (green paint). All of the gashes on the coin are the same color as the rest of the coin. That rules out damage when being dug unless the toning was later.
     
  6. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I suggest you contradict yourself here. If we price, that means the coin would be worth the same with or without the marks. I suspected that I would not have won the coin had it been perfect because omeone would have bid twice my level.
     
  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    .....shivering that a fellow ancient coin enthusiast used the grade of AU...... :(

    Myself, personally I would grade VF (heavy marks). I would expect some "modern" ancient coin dealers to grade it XF(heavy marks). I prefer to net grade and mention unusual aspect if they caused a net grade. If its a good old fashioned VF, then just grade VF. If heavy marks, bad strike, etc caused it to be net VF simply say VF(defect).
     
  8. TIF

    TIF Always learning.

    Let's see... so far for Doug's coin we have VF, EF, AU, and MS, all with various qualifiers.

    Back to "Want" and "Don't Want" :D.
     
    dougsmit likes this.
  9. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    I kinda like the gashes => great coin!! (congrats)

    Yah, I don't usually trust perfect lookin' coins (they look like they're up to something fishy!!?)


    EF (a handful of rim-dings and a scratch/mark on the portrait ... wonderful toning)
     
  10. chrsmat71

    chrsmat71 I LIKE TURTLES!

    i also have a 3 grade system..

    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]

    and
    [​IMG]
     
    vlaha, Kasia, stevex6 and 4 others like this.
  11. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Oddly, the only mark that bothers me is the one on Constantius' cheek but the one that removes half of the soldier's face is less noticeable. I believe if I were setting up a grading system for ancients, I would give first billing to the strike and surface ratings and lower priority to wear. What makes this coin better than some is what TIF called 'remarkably deep' strike. Had the coin been patinated, some of that strike would have been masked. The coin has the less common of two options for head decor (pearl diadem) which means less than nothing to me and, I suspect, 99% of the rest of us. When I did my website's grading page I separated what I termed Conditions of Manufacture (how the coin was when it left the mint) and Conditions of Preservation (what happened in the intervening centuries). At that time I still retained the old style VF and friends grades but I now believe that ancients would be better graded without those letters and just rated by a numeric evaluation of those two factors. Wear would be a part of Preservation to be sure but certainly not the most important part. I'm not foolish enough to propose a new system that I know would never be accepted by anyone but I do believe the appeal of a coin depends on factors like Interest, Demand, Style, Manufacture and Preservation far above wear. To me this is a 2,2,5,5,4 which is very good for a late Roman.
     
  12. zumbly

    zumbly Ha'ina 'ia mai ana ka puana

    I'd go with Extremely Fine with surface faults, or if you wanted to be more economical with the use of words, aEF.
     
  13. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    I grade it Best of Type for Rome. Anyone who's taken a close look at the Rome mint's output during Constantius II's reign would know this is not your average coin, by a long shot. They were clearly very meticulous with the solidi, while not giving a whit about bronze.

    Anyone with a practiced eye would have snatched this coin up, as you have. It's a jewel among all the piles of typically scrappy, weakly-struck, off-center, and poorly-preserved examples. How do you give that a letter grade? A+, even with the scratches.
     
  14. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    That certainly raises the question of just how many of us recognize the difference between the mints and would like this coin because it is good for Rome. It would not be as 'special' for Antioch. I would not say Rome was bad during the early period from which this coin dates (it got worse later) but I have not been able to find as many well preserved Rome coins as some of the other mints.

    This same question applies to many ancient coins. Some issues we expect to see well struck and mint state while others are hardly ever either let alone both. I believe that explains why we see some collections missing certain issues. If you only collect perfect and perfect does not exist, do you just not buy? This is certainly more than good enough for me - perhaps my finest hut. It outshines my other Rome mint coins of Constantius in terms of eye appeal. I like Rome from this era.
    rx6410bb2219.jpg rx6415bb3010.jpg rx6428bb0027.jpg

    I don't have a Constans FEL TEMP from Rome. Do you?
     
  15. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    In my mind the grade is "I want it".
     
  16. John Anthony

    John Anthony Ultracrepidarian

    I do not have a FEL TEMP of Constans from Rome, but I do have a 2 Standards and Securitas, both of which, as scrappy as they are, represent respectable examples of their types.

    c1000.jpg

    constans sec.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  17. zumbly

    zumbly Ha'ina 'ia mai ana ka puana

    I haven't looked closely at many of these types, but taking a closer look at the OP coin, I'm wondering as to the contrast between the sharpness of the diadem detail and the hair ends below the ear and the general weakness of the details of the hair. Was this a result of the strike being slightly weak, or something else? It seems that often the hair detail on the better preserved of these LRBs can be almost razor sharp.
     
  18. randygeki

    randygeki Coin Collector

    I like to go with the grades "nice," and "sweet."
     
    stevex6 likes this.
  19. stevex6

    stevex6 Random Mayhem

    => don't forget "awesome" & "cool"
     
    randygeki likes this.
  20. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    If I only collected perfect coins, I would not own a single sogdian piece. I agree with this, you know the coins and buy what you can buy if you truly are a collector.
     
    Bing likes this.
  21. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    Med-man is right. I cannot collect only EF or highly graded coins, so I collect what I like within budget. This is one of the reasons I collect Ancients and not modern coins. With modern coins their is too much emphasis placed on condition and grade.
     
    Valentinian, TIF and medoraman like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page