I ignored one of my own rules about duplicates

Normally, I try to avoid duplicates in my collection but recently I couldn't pass one up. Both coins are Sextus Pompey denarii of the "filial loyalty" variety.

I've had the first coin for a while and was mostly attracted to it for its obverse, a strong portrait of Pompey the Great with subtle details like wrinkles around his eye. The reverse also has an interesting style, with the left and center figures being particularly well struck. The third figure is off the flan, but that is very often the case on this issue, a result of attempting to fit a large design on a small coin. It hasn't bothered me, mostly because better centered coins don't come up very regularly and when they do, they tend to be from a few dies wherein the design is compressed, which I don't find as aesthetically pleasing.

My newest coin has a nice obverse, with a well-struck legend but not quite as nice of an overall style. The reverse, however, is what really sold me on it. I've never seen an example that even comes close to this complete and well-composed of a reverse. It's unfortunate that we can't split coins in half and reconnect them!

It brings me to a bit of a precipice: I have thus far avoided duplicates in my collection but this may be an instance where each coin is significantly different enough to justify keeping both. I'm still not 100% decided either way but I'm leaning toward keeping the pair, but trying to prevent it from becoming a trend which results in opening the floodgates of duplicates when I'm attempting to build a comprehensive rather than specialized collection.

My first:


My new example:


Post your duplicates, and before/after upgrades!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can only drool when you post your coins. These both are marvelous examples and I would gladly take either or both (but pay of course). I will look through and post a couple I have that are duplicates, but they will not be near the quality as your coins.

 

Those pics are (how do yo say?) fabulous!

 

Wow, it's nice to finally see the complete reverse design. And with that, you really appreciate how unfortunate it is that it didn't fit on the majority of the blanks that were used. I wouldn't sell your first one because by comparison you really can see how wonderful it's style is. I think the two examples complement each other by the contrast of their differences and you really should keep them both. And as for opening the floodgates of duplicates, maybe you just need a bigger budget .

 

A couple of my duplicates:


View attachment 421339
C.CLAUDIUS PULCHER ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS CLAUDIA
AR Denarius
OBVERSE: Head of Roma r., wearing helmet decorated with circular device
REVERSE: Victory in biga r., holding reins in both hands; in exergue, C. PVLCHER
Struck at Rome 110-109 BC
3.76g, 19mm
Cr300/1, Syd 569, Claudia 1



MN. FONTEIUS ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS FONTEIA
AR Denarius
OBVERSE: Jugate heads of the Dioscuri
REVERSE: Galley under oar
Struck at Rome 108-109 BC
3.9g, 20mm
Cr.307/1, Fonteia 7

 

Yup. Keep 'em both.....

 

Dang it Bing. You're dog gone quick.......

 

Both coins have their charms to be sure, but the newest acquisition has an extraordinary portrait, one of the best of Pompey I've seen. Wow.

 

You kill me every time with that Fonteius upgrade, Bing.

 

It's easy to make a case for keeping both the Pompey examples, for the reasons you stated. The reverse of your newest Pompey is the best I've seen*

*As a relatively new collector, this really doesn't mean much . Clearly AJ's coins are awesome though.

As for duplicates, I have a few to contribute. "Upgrade" implies intent to purge the original and I probably won't do that.

PONTOS, Amisos; Perseus holding the head of Medusa, whose body is still gushing blood from the neck stump. This type of coin has been very popular among CoinTalkers-- seems like we all went on the hunt around the same time. I found one with an excellent reverse and was pretty happy with it despite the double-struck obverse. Not long after, I found a corroded example at a local jewelry store of all places! It cleaned up remarkably well and I think I like it better than the first (and far more expensive) coin.

PONTOS, Amisos. 85-65 BCE. AE28 (1st coin), AE29 (2nd coin). Helmeted head of Athena right / AMIΣOY; Perseus standing facing, holding harpa and head of Medusa, Medusa's body at his feet


The second coin, before cleaning:

 

Most marvelous Tif.......

 

Opinion/trivia:
Are the coins below duplicates? To me, none are duplicates. There are a couple varieties I lack and am seeking but many/most people would say they are all the same.

 

Joe, both are tremendous pieces.

Ditto

 

If I had Doug's group, I'd keep the third one down and pass the rest along to Doug.

 

Cool addition, Joe ... $300 well spent



Duplicates, eh? ... well, kinda like TIF, I do have a few Medusa-duplicates (ummm, but as Doug interjected => all of my examples are quite different, so they're more than duplicates => they're compliments!!)






=> oh, and my focus has always been on "blood gushing, griffin helmet, and harpa)

 

Duplicates? ... well, kinda? (but again => compliments)

Dyrrhachium
Suckling Calf & Linear square



Dyrrhachion, Illyria, Brockage Error
Cow w. suckling calf & Brockage Error

 

Please pass me the second one before you give the rest to Doug, thanks!

 

L. Thorius Balbus
Juno/Goat & Bull charging



L. Thorius Balbus Brockage Error
Juno/Goat & Brockage Error

 

What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?
What is wrong with hoarding duplicates?

 

Where to start...

Septimius Severus denarius
Obv:– IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG, Laureate head right
Rev:– TR P IIII IMP II COS, Mars standing right, resting on spear and shield
Minted in Alexandria, A.D. 194
References:– BMCRE -, RIC -, RSC -. cf. RIN (Rivista Italiana di Nvmismatica Vol. XCVI (1994/1995)

Additional information from Curtis Clay:-
"Bickford-Smith recorded three other specimens, of which I also have plaster casts: his own coll. (probably now in BM), Klosterneuburg, and U.S. private collection.......
This type was clearly struck in 194, when Septimius was TR P II and IMP III or IIII, so TR P IIII IMP II in the rev. legend is an error, the origin of which is obvious: the type is a rote copy of the identical type and legend on denarii of Lucius Verus of 164, Cohen 228-9. The titles apply to Lucius in 164, not Septimius in 194!"

That was before I added some more to the known specimen list...





I don't count the following as a suplicate because the reverse legend ends COS II