Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1632337, member: 19463&quot;]Finally someone saw through my act.&nbsp; Each of those coins does have something going for it and something keeping it from being a collectable coin to perfectionists.&nbsp; That is why none of these coins cost $1500+ which is what medoraman&#039;s &quot;ideal&quot; coin would bring in a Triton level auction.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This coin has severe <u>flan</u> (not die) adjustment scratches done <u>before</u> the coin was struck.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I&#039;ll add that the edges of the coin are also filed but this is no cast fake.&nbsp; I suspect it is a cut down flan from an easlier type.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The US section of Coin Talk has hosted the same discussions relating to adjustment scratches on 1794 silver dollars.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I agree with Doug.&nbsp; I was able to afford coin #3 because of those scratches.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That coin has excellent surfaces - the kind of surfaces that come on $1500 coins.&nbsp; #2 has nice color in a overly thick patina but was the cheapest of the four because of the huge gash on the reverse.&nbsp; #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.&nbsp; I suspect it is a river coin but I can not prove it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#039;m glad it looks good as part of this set so medoraman can wonder if I started planning this set over 20 years ago.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I maintain that there is no ancient coin harder to grade fairly than this one.&nbsp; It was produced with more variables than can be considered in any grading system.&nbsp; I love it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I apologize to Steve but I really don&#039;t like his coin.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It is so ....... average.&nbsp; :devil:&nbsp; (I&#039;ll bet it cost as much as any of mine, too.&nbsp; People like well rounded coins.)&nbsp;&nbsp; Which is my best croc coin?&nbsp;&nbsp; None of these are as nice as the first one shown on my previous thread (unless you hold its half obvious fault against it).</p><p><a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t221802/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t221802/">http://www.cointalk.com/t221802/</a>[/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