No, this isn’t a treatise on how to “tool” an aureus to make it look better! Like any makeover, it consists of “before” and “after” pictures, illustrating how much a coin’s looks can be improved with simple techniques that don’t require any alteration of the coin’s surface. Here’s the before picture: Note the low contrast, somewhat inaccurate color rendition, and distracting tabs imprisoning the coin in its plastic jail cell. Its virtues are obscured by its unattractive presentation. Here’s the after picture: HADRIAN 117 - 138 A.D. AV Aureus (7.15 g.) Rome ca. 134 - 138 A.D. RIC II -- cf. 298g HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P bare head of Hadrian r. Rev. Africa, draped, wearing elephant-skin headdress, recl. L, r. hand on neck of lion stg. L. grain ears behind Natural lighting and better presentation, combined with a complimentary background, have really brought out the beauty and quality of the coin. (A better photographer than I could improve this even more, I suspect.) I really believe Heritage did this coin a disservice by slabbing it. Part of Heritage’s description included the NGC grading: NGC Choice XF 5/5 - 4/5 Fine Style My dealer and I agree that the appropriate grade is About EF, while the artistic style of both the obverse and reverse speaks for itself. I was very, very happy to acquire a travel series Hadrian aureus at such a bargain price
Beautiful coin! You should actually thank Heritage. Obviously, it's poor presentation helped you to obtain it at a good price. NGC's rating didn't do it justice either. A 4/5 Fine style? What a joke. Congratulations.
Congratulations! I had a bid on this aureus as well but didn't view it in hand and was a bit worried about the surfaces from HA's photo. You definitely got it for a steal! Are you now trying for the full travel series? It'd make for a great sub-collection.
Congratulations!!! What a wonderful travel series aureus and it definitely seems like you scored a fantastic bargain to boot. Incredible what a difference proper lighting etc can make in the actual appearance of a coin. Of course, in my case, I experience this sort of thing with more budget friendly silver varieties. LOL
I do find myself more and more interested in this particular coinage of Hadrian, despite my recent hiccup with the Hispania aureus. I'm hopeful we won't be competing on these coins in some upcoming auctions...
@IdesOfMarch01 Wow, what a difference in those 2 photos. Congrats on such a fantastic acquisition. I absolutely love the color in the second photo. I am very happy to see it released from its plastic tomb.
Bing, You don't understand the 4/5 rating. That is a surface rating and has nothing to do with the style. The coin had been rated "fine style." The first 5/5 is the strike grade, indicating the coin is well struck, well centered and had no other strike related distractions. The 4/5 is a surface grade. The coin received a 4 surface grade because it had been wiped with a jewelers cloth and exhibited some fine hairlines and was slightly matte in appearance. Congrats ides on your purchase I had actually considered bidding myself but I've spent enough on other coins this month. It's a nice coin. Barry Murphy
Thanks for the good wishes. While I understand and even appreciate NGC's grading system -- it's clearly a competent effort to create an objective and quantifiable rating for ancients -- most ancient coins are so inconsistently struck that it's almost always necessary to view the coin in hand, (optimally) out of a slab, to really judge whether the coin is the one you want as a collector. For example, the Hadrian's surface was indeed slightly matte, as compared to other aurei, but not as dull as the Heritage picture seemed to indicate, and was still fairly reflective in natural sunlight. I think my dealer noticed this (a plus) when he examined it in person. Another issue with ancient coins that's difficult to quantify in a rating is the centering. For example, suppose (on another coin) the obverse centering is a little off and the strike gets less than a 5/5 rating. If the emperor's name is still fully on the obverse, that's a lot more acceptable than if the part of the legend that's off the flan loses the emperor's name. So in this instance, abstractly comparing the strike rating for two different coins won't substitute for the need to evaluate each coin directly. Understand that I'm not casting aspersions on NGC's rating system for ancients -- I'm just saying that in my experience, there are so many variables affecting these handstruck coins that it's probably not possible to quantify all of these variables accurately.
