Nemausus dupondius opinions sought

I have begun working on a new page for my website. I'm not yet certain enough where it will go to advertise that but I am looking for opinions on these four coins. All four are provincial dupondii from Nemausus (Nimes) showing Agrippa and Augustus with a crocodile chained to a palm. They are not all the same exact type but for this purpose I'd prefer they all be considered the same. The photo is to scale between coins with the largest (right) being 28mm.

My question is which do you prefer? These coins come in a huge range of conditions and faults abound. Not all of these sold for the same price. I would like opinions as to which of the four you would consider the nicest and the one that should sell for the highest price or carry the highest grade letters. If you wish you may assign grades of all 4 and explain why you saw it that way. I am convinced all four are genuine and none are a rare enough variation that it carries a premium. One of them is ex-ANS collection and that always carries a premium but for this purpose we should ignore such factors.

I am hoping that not everyone agrees on this. If you are willing to offer an opinion but are shy to post it publicly, feel free to email or PM me through any of the groups we have in common. This is not a test; there is no 'right' answer.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

i like the third coin (left to right) best, was going with 4th ...nice green patina, but 3rd has nice details even with the vertical scratches.

 

I have glanced at more than a few of these coins but am not real familiar with the Colonia Nemausus coins to the point of knowing all these variations. At present, these coins are way beyond my monthly budget, but I could save for several months and perhaps obtain one if I wished.

It's difficult to say which one I'd prefer because on one coin I might like the color of one coin better than the other. On another, the obverse portraits might be less worn and have a better engraving style than another. The crocodile has nice details on the reverse, but the obverse isn't as good. Some legends are worn, etc.

Although, the way it is for me. I like the color of #2 better than the rest, assuming that your photo has the color right on, compared to in-hand.

I like the engraving style of #3 (from left) better than the others, but the patina looks rather thin.

#4 has a solid patina and I like the Augustus portrait, as it seems less worn than Agrippa on the left side.

You can find decent coins from $100 and up, now days.


#1 - F+ Nice obverse, not so good reverse.

#2 - VF- Nice obverse. Reverse is also detailed.

#3 - VF - Perhaps overcleaned a bit but a coin with details.

#4 - F+ - Nice patina and is heavily worn in places.

That's my opinion and all that I can think of right now. I haven't been collecting for too long so, certainly not an expert on it.

 

Isn't it funny what each of us sees as pleasing in our coins. My preference is to coin #4 mainly for the portraits, but also for the depiction of the crocodile.

 

I prefer 2 for the patina and 4 for the overall looks.

 

If I were to buy only ONE example of any of these I would purchase #3. I like the patina in #2 but I could live with the scratches on 3 to get better details.

Please note I would buy the coin solely for the Crock having the most details. I would have the coin be a conversation piece or a special place in my collection featuring an animal that isnt seen often on ancients.

 

Tough choices. My top 2 would be 3 and 4. 4 would easily be my preference if it had the other part of the reverse motto, I am assuming it is missing letters after COL.

I don't like 1 because if its mushy appearance, and simply find the reverse way too lacking details on 2. Knowing me, if given these 4 coins on a table, I would buy both 3 and 4. I would buy 3 for its details, and buy 4 for the overall appearance.

This is the side benefit of being a hoarder of ancient coins, I can justify buying more than one copy of a coin on grounds I need more than one example to get the "complete picture" of the coin. While being a convenient excuse, its also very true for many coins I collect.

 

For aesthetics I like the 3rd from the left best.

 

If history, rarity and price are equal, I look for detail, size, completeness and legibility in ancients.

That in mind, 3 and 4 would "grade" higher.

And 4 would "win" because it is the largest of those two.

 

My favorite part of the opinions so far is the realization that the most worn coin (#4) showing the most clear outlines can hold its own against the more detailed coins whose surface irregularities make it harder to see certain things clearly. In ancients, I frequently find myself preferring a nice fine to a technical VF (or is it "VF details") with a problem. Modern collectors are able to avoid this issue by denouncing any coin with any problem but ancient folks have to be ready to evaluate problems against problems. No one has yet mentioned that coin #2, in addition to having the best color, has the best crocodile eye while #1 is an earlier version when the crocodile was smaller so it has the best tail to head completeness. Here I can even find something nice to say about the two ugliest sides of the two least attractive coins.

I believe this new page will turn into a discussion of why it is hopeless to grade ancient coins. Special thanks to Gil-galad who was willing to assign letter grades which I find reasonable as long as you attach a string of modifiers like he did. Isn't it amazing how different two coins can look when both are VF?

These early results make it hard for me to understand the modern collectors' fascination with coins with blotchy, detail hiding toning. I found interest in the one comment that the crocodile is the reason to own this coin. Usually we think of the portrait being king. That would open up the question as to which portrait is more important. I suspect many people use this coin to represent Agrippa in their collection but no one has mentioned #4 as faulty because it is really bad on Agrippa as opposed to just weak in some part. Do feel free to continue this discussion. Also feel free to add on your coins of this type which show some other factors. I propose that this type is the hardest to grade/describe ancient coin. What other candidates might you nominate to go against it for that title?

Thanks to all who participate.

 

Numbering is from left, to right:

Coin #3 => great patina and overall great eye-appeal

Coin #4 => quite "smooth", but obverse & reverse details are easy to recognize

Coin #1 => same basic reasoning as #4

Coin #2 => still a nice coin, but a bit difficult to decipher the details

Here is my example:

 

Well, I am a collector of moderns, and from my perspective, it would seem that you need to acquire a representative sample of ancient coins in order to claim that you've collected a particular type.

Modern coins lack one dimension that ancients possess: the interpretation of a particular design by a particular die cutter. We have an abundance of minutia to hold our interest to be sure: strength of strike, luster, die variety, rarity, toning, etc. But comparing the actual execution of a design between different die cutters is not a part of our equation. (It certainly is an element of earlier US coinage - all the large cent varieties come to mind.)

It seems to me that in ancient collecting, "type" refers to a general blueprint - a blueprint that gets executed by artists of various degrees of talent and skill. It's exactly analogous to a piece of music. I have at least four different interpretations of the Beethoven Symphonies by four different conductors - they are all radically different, despite the fact that they are taken from the same blueprint. They all have their merits and their debatable quirks. Is it really incumbent upon me to choose my favorite and discard the rest? That would seem amateurish at the least - a nuanced discussion of the differences seems more in order.

That's my long-winded way of saying that if I had to pick only one of those coins, I would be greatly disappointed, and I would do it only with an eye for eventually acquiring the other three.

 

From someone who doesn't collect ancient coins at all - my preference would be (from the left) - 3, 1, 4, 2.

Generally speaking - the reasons would be the same as Stevex6 above.

 

4 and 3 are tied for first, then 2, and lastly 1. The reverse of 1 is just too rough for my taste. The style of 2 is too crude. Four, while certainly in lower grade than 3, has better surfaces and a nicer patina. I usually find that I prefer the coin with better surfaces, even if it is a bit more worn.

 

I would go for coin #3 first and then coin #2. This is a tight call and having to choose between the two would be very difficult if I had them both in front of me and had to make a choice.
The justification for coin 3 is purely on the number of individual factors that I find interesting about it. Coin 4 seems more complete and has better portraits but I would still edge towards coin #3.
Regards,
Martin

 

What I find funny, (and I am betting why Doug chose these coins), is every single one of them there is an appealing aspect to. Basically, my "ideal" coin would be to take the croc from coin #1, the patina from #2, the level of details from #3, and the surfaces from #4. Then you would have it all.

"See honey, that is why I need 6 of the exact same coin, each one is only a piece of the puzzle". Not sure it will work, but worth a shot.

Btw, wonderful example Steve, great job finding that one.

 

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Everything else being equal, I would take the coin #3. However, I am not an experienced ancient coin collector. I would suspect that an ancient collector with more experience than I might take coin #4.

#1 I can see the whole crocodile but the coin is too far gone for me to enjoy it as much as the others

#2 I can’t see much through the green patina (candy coating).

#3 I really like the detail that is visible and regret that some letters are off the planchet & really regret that it hasn’t yet recovered from the cleaning abrasion.

#4 I like that it is nicely centered & toned & all letters are visible. However, I am drawn back to #3 where there are more details to be seen including the chain which completes the story on the reverse.

 

Since I have no experience with this period of Roman coins, my complete uninformed preference is for coin #4, despite the lack of detail on the obverse as compared to #3. As much as I like the additional detail on coin #3, I find the cleaning (?) scratches extremely distracting and they lower the overall appeal of the coin, to my eye.

 

Ahhh... those scratches. They are not necessarily part of the cleaning process and are likely in this case to have been part of the preparation of the die. They add to the story of the coin in my opinion.

 

I would be very surprised to learn that the scratches on coin #3 are due to the original die -- I would think that the Romans would not have allowed continued striking of coins with such obvious defects in the die.

It would be helpful if dougsmit would weigh in on the issue of these scratches, since it seems to me that the depth and breadth of his knowledge far exceeds any that I have when it comes to evaluating surfaces of ancient coins.