Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RaceBannon, post: 1651856, member: 25357&quot;]To my eye, from a purely eye appeal stand point, coin # 3 stands out above the rest.&nbsp; I like the patina, in particular the contrast that is evident between the high points of the design and those recessed areas.&nbsp; I realize it is not a desert patina, but the contrast effect is similiar.&nbsp; My knowledge base irt ancients is not yet advanced enough to be able to accurately grade these.&nbsp; The scratches add to the appeal in my opinion.&nbsp; They remind me of the same visual effect one gets from &quot;woodgraining&quot; on some Lincoln Cents (if I&#039;m not mistaken there are a few threads here on cointalk discussing the appeal of these).&nbsp; Collectors tend to put a premium on this type of visual effect.</p><p><br /></p><p>I also really like the green patina on coin #2.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I&#039;d rank this coin as #2.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would rank the last coin on the right as #3.&nbsp; Still a very handsome coin.&nbsp; I like the detail on the portrait of Augustus.&nbsp; I think if there was similar detail on Agrippa, this coin would have a lot greater eye appeal.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would rank the first coin in the sequence as #4 to my eye.&nbsp; Again, I still think this is a nice looking coin.&nbsp; I just think the details are not as clear as on the others.&nbsp; Whether due to strike or wear, I cannot tell.&nbsp; The devices also seem a little more crude.</p><p><br /></p><p>The half crocs are an interesting twist.&nbsp; I assume the half coins had the same value for an Augustus half as an Agrippa half?[/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