hi I was wondering if someone could help me determine the grade and value of this coin, I’m new to ancients and I have no idea how to determine the grade. Thank you
I have a similar example, but I can't be certain they are from the same ruler. Mine is a prutah under ANTIOCHUS VII, Seleukid Kingdom, and I paid a whopping $17 in 2012. ANTIOCHUS VII (Seleukid Kingdom) Prutah OBVERSE: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ ; Anchor, date below, ΑΠΡ (year 181) REVERSE: Lily Struck at Jerusalem, Judea 132-130 BC 5.2g, 16mm
@don oswald in ancients the grade is somewhat subjective and most collectors pay little attention. There are many factors that determine the condition and overall desirability of an ancient coin and circulation wear (grade) is just a small part of the puzzle. There was a great post recently by @Valentinian which covers the subject beautifully. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/condition-and-grade.342401/
Grade (wear) is only one of the things that make up 'eye appeal' with ancients. Compare my coin, Bing's coin and yours. Which is the highest grade? Which is the better coin all things considered? Bing paid twice as much in 2012 than I did in 2002. Was that a matter of grade, time, luck or what??? Most of us don't bother with grades all that much. Personally, I prefer a pretty fine to an EF with problems that bother me. Others will not buy any coin less than mint state but are not bothered by things like strike or surface quality. Some of us recognize only two grades: "I like it" and "No, thanks!"
and to illustrate how varied pricing can be: here's one that sold for $325 in 2010 and another that sold in 2012 for $850....prices can vary widely if a couple of people both really want a given coin. Finally this $45 one sold in 2018 and looks pretty nice.
That's one of the things I like about collecting ancients, its less about buying the highest graded coin and much more about buying what appeals to you. For instance one of my latest purchases is a bit rough, but the thought of holding a piece of history from Carthage made it a coin I had to have.
I agree on the appeal of the Carthage interest which explains why I have two (each different from yours). I like your coin especially because of the clear KART at the end of the reverse legend. Such things make a difference when the appeal is based on those letters. Galerius Caesar Maximinus II Caesar Would anyone like to step up and correct the ID omission in this post? This is not an easy one. Who issued the cwart coin?
As there are no volunteers, I will take a shot at it. Not a time period where I have expertise - and my reference books are not near me at the moment - I think Sear might make this a bit easier. Auction databases are likely to be full of mis-attributed examples of these coins. First, I will note that it is worth reading @Valentinian's recent & excellent thread on the subject. This is the most challenging: a case of Rule 5 where legends alone will not differentiate between Maximianus and Galerius. The coin above (posted by @cwart): - IMP MAXIMIANVS PF AVG - SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART One quick aside: it is perhaps interesting to also know what this legend says: "Salvis duorum augustorum et duorum caesarum, felix Karthago" which reads "With two healthy Augusti (senior) and two healthy Caesars (junior), Carthage is happy" Rule 1: MAXIMINVS always identifies Maximinus II. (DOES NOT APPLY) Rule 2: MAXIMIANVS with CAES identifies Galerius (DOES NOT APPLY) Rule 3: MAXIMIANVS with GAL identifies Galerius. (DOES NOT APPLY) Rule 4: Coins with MA and MAXIMIANVS are of Maximian. (DOES NOT APPLY) Rule 5: Both Maximian and Galerius have coins with "MAXIMIANVS" and "AVG." We need some other way to tell them apart (sometimes the reverse type). It helps to keep in view the tetrarchies and their timing: 285 AD the early phase Diocletian Aug + Maximian Caes 293 AD first Tetrarchy (East/Jovian) Diocletian Aug + Galerius Caes (West/Herculean) Maximian Aug + Constantius Chlorus Caes 305 AD second Tetrarchy (East/Jovian) Galerius Aug + Maximinus II Caes (West/Herculean) Constantius Chlorus Aug + Severus II Caes The two possibilities are: Maximian after 293 AD or Galerius after 305 AD. The differentiator is the letter on the reverse field which denotes the two houses (Jovian and Herculean) - the "I" in field on the reverse helps to identify this follis as one of "Galerius" who was Jovian (not Herculean Maximianus). Addendum: Sear 14558 (AD 305-306) "In this issue the follis of the 'Jovian' rulers Galerius and Caesar Maximinus have the letter I (= Iovi) in the reverse field, while those of the 'Herculians' Constantius and Severus have the letter H." 32 coins in ACSearch matching "MAXIMIANVS P F AVG" SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART 4 have the I in field - 3 are labeled Maximian, and 1 is labeled "Galerius as Caesar"
…………… and the portraiture. RIC VI, Londinium, No. 17, Maximian Herculius, Augustus of the West: CT (Cloke & Toone), No. 2.01.007 (2), c. AD 296-303, Rarity: C IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG .............................. GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI Laureate, cuirassed, bust. 8.8 gm. RIC VI, Londinium, No. 42, Galerius Maximian, Augustus of the East CT (Cloke & Toone), No. 4.03.004, AD 1 May 305 - Spring 307, Rarity: S IMP C MAXIMIANVS P F AVG ......................... GENIO POPV -- LI ROMANI Laureate, cuirassed, bust. Identical obverse inscription (2C) to the primary one of Maximian Herculius. 9.7 gm.
I wouldn't be good at grading coins because I'd wind up giving all of them an an "A" for Awesome. All of them amaze me, no matter what condition they're in. Here's an image of my John Hyrcanus I under Antiochus VII prutah (Hendin 1131) and an image of the same coin graded.
I would grade it F = "Fine" If I had expected a GF -and this is what turned up - I would say OK. I would return it if I had been expecting a VF Hope that helps Rob T PS - its a good job the internet and scans turned up when they did, as grading was already going to the dogs by the 1990's
Sometimes one has to go to the books to decide, but in this case the portrait does it. Maximian had an upturned or bulbous nose, and Galerius did not. Maybe you have read or think about portraits of the tetrarchs that "they all look alike" but that is not so once you become familiar with their portraits. This page: http://augustuscoins.com/pages/edit/coins/ed/tetrarchy/Maximianfolles.html is devoted to the GENIO POPVLI ROMANI coins of Maximian (not from Carthage) and this one: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/Galeriusfolles.html is devoted to the GENIO POPVLI ROMANI coins of Galerius. Regardless of mint, they are different. Here is a page grouped by mint: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/tetrarchy/bymint.html They certainly do not have the realism that many earlier portraits do, but the nose of Maximian is distinguishable.
To me, the book is the answer here. Look at the RIC listings of coins with similar field markings (here I). We see above my Maximinus II Caesar and the cwart coin. Bingo. We have a winner. When the I and H coins were issued the old guys were Senior Augusti and had been replaced in the tetrarchy by the new (not necessarily improved) Maximianus aka Galerius and his Caesar Maximinus II (no A before the N). This question was not a trick but it might be tricky. It required reading and understanding every letter. I do have to admit that the nose helps but it is not necessary to get the answer from the book even without images.
