Nemausus dupondius opinions sought

Finally someone saw through my act. Each of those coins does have something going for it and something keeping it from being a collectable coin to perfectionists. That is why none of these coins cost $1500+ which is what medoraman's "ideal" coin would bring in a Triton level auction. No one mentioned the style of the portraits (a factor that means something to me but not to many people, it seems) but maridvnvm got the scratches right. This coin has severe flan (not die) adjustment scratches done before the coin was struck. Whether this was weight adjustment or to remove details from a coin to be overstruck, I do not know but these are subject of a major difference of opinion as to how much they should affect the price of a coin. I'll add that the edges of the coin are also filed but this is no cast fake. I suspect it is a cut down flan from an easlier type. Many coins show these flan preparation pre-striking scratches; few show them quite this strongly but you may note that this coin is thicker and more weakly struck than some so the scratches were not erased. They are not damage but they are not pretty. They are part of the mint process that made the coin and, finally, they keep about half of potential bidders from even looking at the coin. The US section of Coin Talk has hosted the same discussions relating to adjustment scratches on 1794 silver dollars. Some pointed out that the scratches are to be expected while Doug (the guy who runs this place) points out that a coin without them will sell for more. I agree with Doug. I was able to afford coin #3 because of those scratches. Coin #4 would have been over my head if Agrippa was as well struck as Augustus and the reverse on the side that backed up Agrippa (the croc head, chain and NEM) were as strong as the COL and croc rear. That coin has excellent surfaces - the kind of surfaces that come on $1500 coins. #2 has nice color in a overly thick patina but was the cheapest of the four because of the huge gash on the reverse. #1 has been in my collection since 1991 and I paid too much for it back then but it would be a bargain today if you allow for it being the early style. I suspect it is a river coin but I can not prove it. I'm glad it looks good as part of this set so medoraman can wonder if I started planning this set over 20 years ago.

I maintain that there is no ancient coin harder to grade fairly than this one. It was produced with more variables than can be considered in any grading system. I love it. I apologize to Steve but I really don't like his coin. The croc head did not make it on the flan and the other individual characteristics are generally worse than on my best example and better than on my worst. It is so ....... average. :devil: (I'll bet it cost as much as any of mine, too. People like well rounded coins.) Which is my best croc coin? None of these are as nice as the first one shown on my previous thread (unless you hold its half obvious fault against it).
http://www.cointalk.com/t221802/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Correction, I did mention something about the engraving style of the coins.

Honestly, #3 looks over-cleaned to me. But yeah, the scratches could be from the original minting process.

 

I guess I'll have to reshoot that photo. The coin does not strike me as looking overcleaned unless you are reading the scratches as cleaning.

 

Ahahahaha => holy schmokes, dougeroo => don't ever feel like you've got to apologize for a coin-comment ... beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend ...

Note: I just went back and checked my records and discovered that I paid $240 (delivered) for this nasty ol' crocodawg ... yah, I'm sure that is probably 10 times as much as you or anybody has ever paid for one of these coins? (which is usually the case with my slightly less than thrifty purchases!!)

=> Hey, I'm just glad that I've lasted this long without being booted-outta here!! ...

 

I paid $36 shipped for my poor man's copy

 

=> of course you did

:fish:

 

Yours is a nice coin Steve. If i really wanted one of these, i do not think its a bad price. I thini i like it more than Doug.

I am like Doug though, always apologizing for my opinion of a coin. Its hard, since you never know how someone may take honest criticism. I tend to be a hqrsh grader, especially on ancients. I view our field as the last bastion against ebay grading, so please no one take offense if i disagree about a grade.

Chris

 

thanks for your support, medoraman ... I love your avatar!!

 

Reviving this old thread, I'll show a new half in the middle of the bottom row which I bought because of its odd die orientation. When cut these are almost always cut between the two heads but variations in die axis orientations change what you get on half of the reverse. The new one has Augustus and most of the crocodile instead of just the head or the tail. Some will not be surprised to hear that this is not the first coin I bought because of its die axis.


I'll try to resist buying a half with no crocodile at all.

 

My favorite half so far!

Thanks for the picts

 

I prefer number 3. It has some crocodile details and the best portrait among the 8 portraits. Its COL NEM legend is the strongest. Admittedly, it is a close call. I don't think the values differ a great deal, except maybe number 1 (on the left) is worth less for having a weak crocodile, which is a big part of the interest of the coin.

 

From L-R

1. Is my least favorite, it's not bad though.
2. I really like the patina and the green croc. and the portraits arent bad. I'd put it 3rd for favoritism.
3. Despite the scratches this is my favorite. I like the patina and the style allot.
4. I feel like this one is the best though. Nice patina and good portraits, and easy to look past the wear.

 

To my eye, from a purely eye appeal stand point, coin # 3 stands out above the rest. I like the patina, in particular the contrast that is evident between the high points of the design and those recessed areas. I realize it is not a desert patina, but the contrast effect is similiar. My knowledge base irt ancients is not yet advanced enough to be able to accurately grade these. The scratches add to the appeal in my opinion. They remind me of the same visual effect one gets from "woodgraining" on some Lincoln Cents (if I'm not mistaken there are a few threads here on cointalk discussing the appeal of these). Collectors tend to put a premium on this type of visual effect.

I also really like the green patina on coin #2. There is something about this color that seems to add to the appeal on an ancient coin for me. I also really like the detail in the scales of the Croc evident on the reverse in this example. I'd rank this coin as #2.

I would rank the last coin on the right as #3. Still a very handsome coin. I like the detail on the portrait of Augustus. I think if there was similar detail on Agrippa, this coin would have a lot greater eye appeal.

I would rank the first coin in the sequence as #4 to my eye. Again, I still think this is a nice looking coin. I just think the details are not as clear as on the others. Whether due to strike or wear, I cannot tell. The devices also seem a little more crude.

The half crocs are an interesting twist. I assume the half coins had the same value for an Augustus half as an Agrippa half?

 

Very cool lookin' half-croc, dougsmit (oh, I mean very cool lookin' half-coin, yet full-croc!!)

curious? ... so the obverse merely has two necks on it?

 

Both sides are shown in the photo. The issue was not consistent regarding the die axis. Some were oriented as US coins, inverted or 6H. Some were like British coins, medal format, upright or 12H. The new half was oriented half way between at 9H so the body of the croc was behind Augustus and the legend COL NEM was behind Agrippa. I have seen one very roughly broken coin that had two necks and one head (I think it was Augustus') but I think that was a failure rather than intentional break. All others were separated between the two portraits. I did see one whole coin that had a straight chisel cut between the portraits but had not been broken. It was like a kit ready to be made into change if needed. I wanted that one but the seller valued it higher than I did.

I suppose any coin could be broken for change but the practice seems to have been a regular practice on these adversed portrait coins. I'm not suggesting that you should buy a half coin for full price but these are not defective items as much as they are asses the way the practice of the day produced them. To my eye, the random die axis orientation making the pairings of remaining detail equally random adds to the interest of the series.

 

Sorry about that Doug, I was being a bit of an ass ... I now see that both halves of the coin are shown in your photo (the full-croc and the full Augustus is a definite winner)

=> I still find it very odd that they cut those coins in half ... was this unique to these Nemausus coins, or were all sorts of coins being cut in half during this time period?

 

All sorts of coins were being cut in half during this time period... It was to make change (a halved Dupondius was worth an as, so they would split in in two to buy something that cost an as)

 

It was much more common when large bronzes were being minted. I have never seen a 3, 4, or 5th century bronze cut in half, but have seen hundreds of 1 and 2 nd century bronzes that way. This seems to be especially true of provincials, but plenty of imperial coins were affected also.

 

Thanks guys

 

Yes but the double headed coins seem to have been cut more often. This is Julius Ceasar from Vienne in Gaul. Augustus used to be there but I don't have a whole one to show.