Recently a Octavian in a NGC Slab surfaced from a collector who seemed to just be unloading his collection at rock bottom prices, I missed out on a NGC VF Owl Tet. for $175, to give you a idea Not much was left but this octavian and some other imperials. I ended up thinking it over and decided when would I ever get a Octavian for under $100, so I pulled the trigger. I couldnt decide if I wanted to keep it slabbed or free it, needless to say Octavian didnt wanna be confined so he busted himself out. Even though its "randy grade" material I dont regret it. Octavian/Augustus was on my want list but seeing his prices kept me at bay. The black spots are just silver toning, not deposits. I did keep the NGC grade ticket, but thats it. My Photos.Octavian, Triumvir and Imperator, Augustus (27 B.C. - 14 A.D.) AR Denarius O: Bare head of Octavian right. R: CAESAR DIVI F, Mercury seated right on rock, playing lyre, petasos around neck. Struck 32 B.C. - 31 B.C. Rome? Mint 3.33g RIC 257, CRI 401, BMCRR 4335
Its a very cool coin Mat. Octavian is to me the last RR, and as such are much cooler than Augustus coins. I don't have one yet, but one of these days need to get one to be placed next to my Antony coins.
Nope, wrapped it in a towel, placed it sideways on a hard surface and used a hammer on the side and hammered it a few times. Afterwards used some pliers to peal away the cracked pieces and was good to go. No damage done, not that much could be done more with the condition this is in.
I don't find it that bad Mat. I wouldn't beat yourself up. Think of it this way, due to Octavian's policies, Rome blossomed and entered into a period of terrific economic expansion. As a result of this, and a stable currency, coins got used for their intended purpose and weren't buried in fear. Therefor, the wear on your coin is testament of good rule by Octavian, its effectively a testament to him.
Oh I agree, could be worse, like my celtic drachm. Im happy with it and dont have any desire to replace it with a higher grade one. I also got it because its a type you dont see often. I see the Gaius and Lucius reverse type all the time.
Even though coins of Octavian are not extremely rare, especially in "Randy-Grade," they are not too common. I don't think I've seen this type for sale before even. Very cool addition! edit: even though its low grade, I jumped on this one fast. I think its one of the lower grade coins I would not want to part with. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-51954
I must admit to liking to handle my ancients and have busted out every slabbed one I have had over the years. It has always given me a smal sense of satisfaction seeing them freed. Well done. Nice coin too. Regards, Martin
I agree with randy, Octavians are not scarce, but they sell for high prices, and this particular type is quite appealing and not seen often. Even if it is in "randy grade" (whatever that is), it is a nice coin. Hope you got it for a good price, Mat. Congratulations. And BTW, thank you for liberating that coin from that godawful plastic.
Here is one of mine: (I got this coin from a seller who sold me a tooled/waxed Drusus sestertius, and gave me this coin as compensation + allowed me to keep the Drusus).
Octavian was affected with asthma. How could he breathe properly in a plastic box ? Those Octavian denarii are worth consideration for at least a little series in every collection. But at a high cost I'm afraid. I just have one so far Octavian, Denarius Italian mint, possibly Rome, 31-30 BC Anepigraph, bare head of Octavian left CAESAR - DIVI F, Victory standing right on globe, holding wreath 3.84 gr Ref : HCRI # 408, RCV # 1552v, Cohen # 66, RIC # 255 The following comment is taken from CNG, sale 84 # 957 : "Following his victory at Actium, Octavian ordered a golden statue of Victory, standing on a globe and holding a wreath and palm, to be set up on an altar in the Curia in Rome. This statue had been captured by the Romans from Pyrrhus in 272 BC, and it assumed a somewhat tutelary mystique, protecting the Roman state from dissolution. In AD 382, the emperor Gratian ordered its removal. Two years later, the senator and orator Symmachus urged Valentinian II to replace it, a request that was met with stiff opposition from the bishop of Milan, Ambrose. Though it was briefly returned to its place by the usurper Eugenius, it was again removed following his defeat. Petitions to Theodosius I for its subsequent replacement were refused, on grounds that the once-important symbol of the gods’ blessing on the Roman Empire was now nothing more than a piece of paganism" Q
For those not up on the terminology, "Randy Grade" is applied to a coin that has appeal only to those willing to overlook certain problems that would make the coin beneath the notice of most conventional collectors. It might imply poor surfaces or a lot of wear so it is hard to say where in falls in the AG to EF spectrum. Personally I believe the Octavian that started this thread is a bit too nice to deserve 'RG' but I am a fan of well worn but clear coins so I probably find the coin prettier than most people would. While I'm at it let me offer the opinion that the now defunct slab was poorly graded by the standards used by that slabbing company. The coin is well worn and they recognized that fact grading the coin VG (a grade I believe to be correct). The strike was rated as 4 out of 5 which is saying the coin was rather well struck, relatively bold and decently centered. I also agree with this rating. My issue is with the surface 2 out of 5 rating. The photo shows a well worn coin (VG is, after all, VG) but the surfaces are not rough, abraded or ugly. I'd say they are really pretty good for a VG coin. Applying the 2/5 is punishing the coin twice for the same fault. Worse this leaves no room on the scale for a coin that really does have surface problems. How should we grade the coin below? I see rather little wear so we can call it VF. The strike and centering are excellent. As a matter of fact the coin was struck again with the hammer that drove in the iron nail so we might even give it extra credit and call it a 6 out of 5. Surfaces on the reverse are no better that the OP coin so that might be a 2/5 but the obverse has severe problems so 0/5 would be fair. Is this a VF 6,1? No! This is a Very Randy Grade Plus if I ever saw one. :devil:
This is the problem with creating a new grading system and trying to implement it. Its also why I don't know why they tried, and didn't just grade like ancient collectors have graded for 500 years or more. That coin is a VG. Its a nice, pleasant, no excuses honest wear VG with no problems. I find it very collectible myself. Calling your above coin a VF, while maybe correct for US grading, is simply wrong for an ancient. Always has been, and should always be. These stupid US grading firms simply tick me off. Chris
