High eye appeal, low grade

Yes, there are items with as-sized dies (and even flans) with no SC. Here's an example:

And here's another from Toynbee's plates:


Gnecchi required the lack of an SC to categorize something as a medallion, but Toynbee disagrees with that criterion; she says there are pieces having the same function – in fact nearly identical in fabric, style, and content – which include SC.

She's not entirely happy with the term "medallion", given that its modern connotations can be misleading, but she grudgingly accepts the term applied to special presentation pieces, which "stand apart from the regular currency." If by "donative issue" you mean special gift pieces, she doesn't distinguish between those and medallions. (Of course there would have been regular currency distributed as a donative to the populace, or maybe even special issues as donatives – certainly to the legions – but I don't think there's any reason to suppose they had any medallic qualities in style or fabric?)

She thinks the "pseudo-medallions" (her term) were the earliest presentation pieces; you don't see regular medallions until Hadrian. Under Augustus for example, you just see things like this, an as struck on a sestertius flan (like my coin):

Gradually the presentation pieces become fancier, with special subjects & engraving (not regular coin dies), but the pseudo-medallions still occur, though they become less common, with a bit of a resurgence under the Severan dynasty. Here's a late one of Trebonianus Gallus, from her plates:


Here's what she says about "medallic coins," a separate category:

Medallic coins are here defined as coins of normal, or slightly supra-normal, weight and size, showing normal reverse types, but with obverse portraits which are either distinctively medallic in style or struck from definite medallion dies. Such pieces cannot be classed as medallions. They are not, with a very few exceptions, set apart structurally from the regular currency, as are the pseudo medallions, nor are they differentiated from ordinary coins, as are the bronze medallions proper, by medallic style in both obverse and reverse types and by the content of the reverse design. Moreover, such combinations of medallion obverse with coin reverse are extremely spasmodic and rare. In fact, in these isolated instances of medallion obverse dies applied to common coins we seem to encounter genuine "freaks" or, at the most, experiments in imparting to normal pieces a medallic aspect without lifting them out of the category of current coinage of the realm; and the same idea would appear to lie behind coins the obverses of which are executed in true medallion style, but for which specific known medallion dies have not been employed.​

Maybe this is why you say you see no medallions here. (I do think my 18g SA qualifies, though.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was over at Fred Shore's the other day - some of you may know him as a private East Coast dealer. He's also the author of Parthian Coins and History, Ten Dragons Against Rome. You often see Shore numbers in Parthian attributions...

Anyway, he offered me a bag of coins that weren't selling at shows because of the low grades, but there was some really enticing stuff in there. Yes, only a few grade better than Fine, but most of them have great eye appeal for the wear, and no problems other than honest wear. Here's an Alexandrian drachm of Lucius Verus with Tyche Seated...

 

Sestertius of Antoninus Pius with Libertas sporting a lovely green cape of flowing mineral deposits...

 

Another Sestertius of AP, struck by Marcus Aurelius. Memorial column with statue of emperor on reverse. This is a pretty scarce coin and quite pricey in higher grades. Again, no problems, just honest wear and very pleasing in hand...

 

High eye-appeal, low grade? This one springs to mind.


Titus
Æ Sestertius, 22.74g
Rome mint, 80-81 AD
RIC 155 (C). BMC 171.

I wanted it because of the fine portrait. They really don't come much better than this.

I'm lucky it's worn and a bit off-centre, or else a portrait such as that would be out of my reach!

 

I think this 1 might fit some of Dougs criteria.
Obverse - Strong bust with well centred strike, worn legends but nice colour and even wear.
Reverse - Same as Obverse
Macrinus, Nikopolis ad Istrum

 

Mysia, Adramytteion, Apollo, Cornucopia between pilei...



Trajan, Phoenicia, Sidon, Europa riding bull...

 

Hello again. I just found your post during a websearch of Roman coin eye appeal. I would like to thank you for putting into words what I could not. And never let us forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes not so the eye of the dealer. Thank you.

 

My collection is based on the minority opinion that it is better to see the good points of a coin than to condemn its shortcomings. Of the million and some types of ancient coins, many simply do not exist in high grade and few are so common in high grade that everyone who wants a mint state example can have one. Compared to many people, I am a condition snob but I rate coins on eye appeal rather than the lack of one specific element of condition: wear. I might go so far as to say I prefer coins I have collected as representatives of their dies which produced 'better' in some manner coins than other dies of the same or different type. That, however, makes me guilty of avoiding lesser coin due to their lack of eye appeal. It is great there are so many coins so we each can have what fits out own definition of desirable.

 

Faustina II, under Marcus Aurelius. Struck 161-176. An as.
26 mm. 13.02 grams.
VESTA holding simpulum and Palladium
BMC 1004. Sear II 507. RIC 1690.
ex Kern at the Denver summer ANA, August 2006.

This coin is not low grade, but far from high grade. However, it is well centered with even wear and legible lettering and bold designs. At 26 mm it is much larger than a denarius. Few collectors of Roman imperial coins prefer this denomination, but it has eye appeal (to me).

 

I agree. There are quite a few worn asses of Faustina II that I have found apealling. We have to ask if we would prefer one of these to a denarius or sestertius of the same asking price. Both of those denominations are more popular in the market even though there must be dozens of VF denarii for every F as. I find Valentinian's coin appealing as do I my lesser one.

 

I haven't received this yet, but it's on its way, so I'm calling it mine enough to post it as such. For me, it fits this thread perfectly, as it's certainly far from being high grade, but for me it's exactly what I like in a coin.

My primary interest is in a realistic portrait first. I don't care about wear, as long as there is enough of the portrait there. Also, for me, it has to be realistic, warts and all, with realistic proportions, etc. If a good portrait is there, I then like a readable and complete legend, or at least as far as the emperor's name. The reverse? I don't care at all - it could be worn smooth and I wouldn't care, if the obverse has a well-struck realistic and proportionate portrait and good legend. Lastly, a pleasing tone.

So, for me, this coin hits all three - a portrait I really like, a complete legend, and a tone I really like as well. Worn and cruddy, and I love it just as it is!

 

I have a lot of coins in lot grades but high eye appeal (at least for me).
But the first coming in my mind is this Julia Maesa denarius.

RIC IV Elagabalus 249

Good details, I was impressed that you can see the face on the reverse, the hand, the child... but as you can see, the surface has major problems. On the obverse especially, the corrosion/damage is bad and it destroyed the last part of the legend.
I can only guess that it was in a PVC holder for many years and somebody tried to clean it mechanically doing a terrible job.

Soaked in acetone for a day, no noticeable results.

But even if I tend to stare at its problems, it still is an appealing coin for me.

 

I do prefer coins with some wear than mint state, In my opinion mint state just means after minting it has been buried where as some wear on a coin shows that it has been used in ancient times for something.

I think this is why I'm more interested in ancient coins than modern, every modern collector wants the highest condition and grade and in my opinion they all look the same (meaning if 2 people have the same variety of a modern mint state coin they are going to be identical apart from toning).

 

Colourfull low grade Vespasian:



Nice example of a fourree:

 

The Roman empire was particularly prosperous during the period of the adoptive emperors. Coins were generally minted with care but they wore down in the course of thousands and thousands of commercial transactions. These coins are typically nice-looking but well worn. Here are some coins of this period that have been spent a few times:


Nerva, AD 96-98.
Roman AR denarius, 2.65 g, 17.1 mm, 6 h.
Rome, 18 Sept - Dec AD 97.
Obv: IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P II COS III P P, radiate head, right.
Rev: LIBERTAS PVBLICA, Liberty standing left, holding pileus and scepter.
Refs: RIC 31; BMCRE 61; Cohen 117; RCV --; ERIC II 83.


Trajan, AD 98-117.
Roman AR Denarius, 3.21 g, 17.8 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 98-99.
Obv: IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN AVG GERM, laureate head right.
Rev: PONT MAX TR POT COS II, Pax standing left, holding branch and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC 17; BMCRE 14-17; Cohen/RSC 292; Strack 13; Hill UCR 29; RCV 3152.


Hadrian, AD 117-138.
Roman Æ dupondius, 13.78 g, , 26.1 mm, 7 h.
Rome, ca. AD 119-124.
Obv: IMP CAESAR TRAIAN HADRIANVS AVG P M TR P COS III, radiate and draped bust, right.
Rev: PIETAS AVGVSTI, Pietas, veiled, draped, standing facing right before a lighted altar, raising her right hand and holding a box of incense in her left.
Refs: RIC 601c; BMCRE 1233-34; Cohen 1044; Strack 542; RCV 3665; Hill 257.


Sabina, AD 117-137.
Roman AR denarius, 3.28 g, 19.4 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 128-134.
Obv: SABINA AVGVSTA HADRIANI AVG P P, diademed and draped bust, left.
Rev: IVNONI REGINAE, Juno standing left, holding patera and scepter.
Refs: RIC 401b; BMCRE 909 note; RSC 37a; RCV --; Strack 370; CRE 56.


Antoninus Pius, AD 138-161.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 23.46 g, 32.3 mm, 12 h.
Rome, December 159 - December 160.
Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P XXIII, laureate head, right.
Rev: PIETATI AVG COS IIII, Pietas, standing facing, head left, holding globe in extended right hand and child on left arm; on either side of her, small girl standing, raising one hand.
Refs: RIC 1031; BMCRE 2088-90; Cohen 621; Strack 1192; RCV 4205.
Notes:RIC 1002 and BMCRE 2062 are misdescribed by Mattingly in both RIC3 and BMCRE4. It is extremely doubtful that any specimens read TR P XXII on obv., but actually read TR P XXIII with the final "I" being merged with the neck truncation.


Faustina I, AD 138-141.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 24.12 g, 32.6 mm, 6 h.
Rome, AD 150.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, Bust of Faustina I, draped and veiled, right.
Rev: AETERNITAS S C, Fortuna, draped, standing left, holding globe on extended right hand and long rudder, vertical in left hand.
Refs: RIC 1107b; BMCRE 1499-1500; Cohen 8; Strack 1267; RCV 4608 v.; Dinsdale 021000.
Notes: Obverse die-match to BMCRE 1499.


Marcus Aurelius, AD 161-180.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 21.36 g, 29.5 mm, 12 h.
Rome, AD 173.
Obv: M ANTONINVS AVG TR P XXVII, head of Marcus Aurelius, laureate, right.
Rev: RESTITVTORI ITALIAE IMP VI COS III, Marcus Aurelius, in military dress, standing left, holding vertical spear in left hand and clasping right hands with Italia kneeling right before him, holding globe in left hand; SC in exergue.
Refs: RIC 1077; BMCRE 1449-1450; Cohen 538; RCV 4997; MIR 259.


Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman oricalchum sestertius, 22.36 gm, 33.7 mm, 12 h.
Rome, December AD 160.
Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: FECVND AVGVSTAE S C, (Faustina as) Fecunditas standing left, between two children (thought to represent Faustina III and Lucilla), holding two infants in her arms (thought to represent Fadilla and Cornificia).
Refs: RIC 1635; BMCRE 902-904; Cohen 96; Strack 1336; RCV 5273; MIR 10.


Lucius Verus, AD 161-169.
Roman AR Denarius, 17 mm, 3.36g, 6h.
Rome, AD 168.
Obv: L VERVS AVG ARM PARTH MAX, laureate head right.
Rev: FORT RED TR P VIII IMP V COS III, Fortuna seated left, holding rudder and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC 586; BMC 477; Cohen 111; RCV 5350; MIR 170.


Lucilla, AD 164-169.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 25.14 g, 31.6 mm, 4 h.
Rome, AD 164-166.
Obv: LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: PIETAS S C, Pietas standing left beside altar.
Refs: RIC 1756; BMCRE 1161-65; Cohen 72; RCV 5505; MIR 16.

 

I have always considered this a very fine very fine coin.

 

I agree. On this coin I tend to judge the clarity of the trident over the completeness of the laurel wreath as primary requirement for grade. Yours is a very very fine very fine coin.