As long as the topic has come up, I'm not sure collecting expensive coins is any more rewarding on a numismatic level than collecting cheap. But I don't want that comment to sound like sour grapes. If I was a multi-millionaire, you can bet I'd have a collection of aureii too. The truth is, I've bought some coins that stretched my budget, and it didn't feel right in the context of my responsibilities to my family. And I didn't get any more numismatic satisfaction from those coins than I did from the bargain bin pick-ups. All the things I like about collecting: the hunt, the research, the mailman playing Santa Claus, imaging the coin, posting it on this forum...all of that stuff is just as satisfying with a $20 purchase as a $200 one.
I don't disagree at all. However, there is a difference. Someone who collects very nice examples is much more likely to see appreciation of his collection than those of us who collect "lesser coins". Doug Smith has a wonderful story about this on his website. Its completely true. However, I simply am willing to give up that part of the "hobby" in return for having more coins to study. I would not be as happy with one superb Sassanian coin instead of having 10 nice ones. If I could afford 50 superb Sassanians that would be terrific, but I can't, so would rather own 50 nice ones than 5 or 10 superb ones. It depends on what makes you happy is all. Coins make me happy, not potential price appreciation, so I collect what gives me pleasure and don't worry about the investing part of it. I am still hoping my young son or unborn son/daughter will get the bug from dad and I will never need to sell any of these anyway.I was kind of hoping Doug Smith would adopt me so he would have someone to leave his coins to.
I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether my coins appreciate during my lifetime. If anyone realizes any financial benefit from them, it will be members of my family, after I'm dead.
Said like a true collector. Applause please.:jumping-jack: (I know this is jumping jack smiley, but I'm using it like applause - did I really need to explain that?)
I believe both are Siculo-Punic. This means that both were minted in Sicily, while it was under Carthaginian rule For specifics: Carthage Siculo-Punic Mint 370-325BC Wreathed head of Tanit left Horse galloping right Sassari 56-136, Holleman Munten List 106 Just some more information on them. plus, you may want to check the bottom for corrosion
I believe the bottom is: Carthage Siculo-Punic Mint 370-325BC Wreathed head of Tanit left Horse galloping right Sassari 56-136, Holleman Munten List 106 With only two varieties of this type, it is not that hard to assess which is which.
Also, I have decided to enter this in the Forvm Best of Type Gallery. It's a beautiful coin... very smooth surfaces and patina for issue
My coin right? If so then thanks very much. I can't help but feel rather honored lol. Kinda wish you had told me before submitting it; I would have tried to get better pics especially the obv.
Yours does have a better centered Tanit though... although it has the usual uneven surfaces (mine has rather smooth surfaces bar the crud)
:hail: Diocletian Silvered Follis 299-303 AD . Carthage mint. Obv.: IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG - Laureate bust right. Rev.: SALVS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART - Carthage standing facing, head left, A in ex. RIC 31a
Another BoT... and Deservedly so! Beautiful! Wrong Thread though... This is about my favorite coin, not the Coins of Carthage (just down the page is where it should go )