Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2096215, member: 19463&quot;]Oddly, the only mark that bothers me is the one on Constantius&#039; cheek but the one that removes half of the soldier&#039;s face is less noticeable.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; What makes this coin better than some is what TIF called &#039;remarkably deep&#039; strike.&nbsp; Had the coin been patinated, some of that strike would have been masked.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; When I did my website&#039;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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Wear would be a part of Preservation to be sure but certainly not the most important part.&nbsp; I&#039;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.&nbsp; To me this is a 2,2,5,5,4 which is very good for a late Roman.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in