Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 7427466, member: 84744&quot;]OK, I&#039;ll offer my neutral opinion. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> I respectfully disagree with pprp on both counts.&nbsp; The flan above the helmet is the strongest indicator of a mount, but it just looks like the flan shape to me.&nbsp; Even if there&#039;s some evidence of mounting that we can&#039;t see in the photos, it&#039;s obviously very subtle and so would not affect the value much.&nbsp; (Things might be different for a very high end coin.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s an ex-mount Shapur II which is pretty obvious - there&#039;s significant damage to the coin, which certainly affects the value:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1289477[/ATTACH]</p><p>As a result I got a decent portrait of Shapur II &amp; a nice reverse for cheap ($30 all in, retail).&nbsp; Maybe a 40-50% reduction?</p><p><br /></p><p>This next example (a popular Bahram II type) is more equivocal, it was described as &quot;likely old mount removal&quot;:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1289480[/ATTACH]</p><p>Clearly there is more damage to the coin (11-12 o&#039;clock on the obverse) than what may or may not be damage to your solidus.&nbsp; Even so, this did not reduce the price by much - maybe a 20% discount?&nbsp; (My winning bid was $200, and there were quite a few nicer pieces in the auction.)&nbsp; So the value of yours would be affected significantly less... even assuming the slightly wonky flan shape is due to a mount, which is far from obvious.</p><p><br /></p><p>IMO mounts only have an effect on value equivalent to the same non-mount damage to the coin.&nbsp; In other words, it&#039;s the damage that matters, not the mounting.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in