Picked up another Aureus yesterday....

Sometimes it is useful to distinguish between coin and type when calling coins "the same."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The grade (TPG) for MDC example was NGC AU 5/5 4/5. But I agree, grading is very subjective. CNG coins from Adams Collection that they raw graded as CH-EF / later appeared in auctions TPG as MS-65/66!!!!! Esp. with all hammered coinage, the TPG grades are very generous. They are a tad better with "milled" coinage. Still Kunker graded a TPG France AV 20 Francs Napoleon I as fast st. (AU) while it was a slabbed MS-66.

 

These are apples to oranges though, and I think this is an important distinction that deserves to be clarified as I've seen you post about it a number of times.

NGC and other companies generally have a consistent standard that they apply - it doesn't mean they're overgrading or that auction houses are under grading coins and an auction house isn't better if it describes coins with lower grades than what a third party grader gives them.

If an auction house were started tomorrow and graded every coin "Worse than Poor" and these coins then were graded MS69+*, that doesn't mean the auction house is superior to one that described them as Mint State.

Similarly, NGC will often call a coin AU if it retains luster when other companies might call it VF. You just have to know what an NGC grade means relative to NGC grades. NGC AU doesn't mean a fraction of a grade away from FDC: there can be quite a chasm of a difference, as is the case in the NGSA vs MDC Faustinas here, considering style, luster, grade, centering, strike, etc. There is too much nuance to distill down into a single number.

CNG calling something EF that is later described as MS doesn't mean anything except for the fact that CNG/Kunker/others don't bother with micro-grading coins like third party graders.

Ultimately, just look at the coin and compare it to other examples. I can honestly say I don't care what auction houses describe as the grade, outside of the marks/scratches/tooling that they indicate.

 

Well stated!

 

For ancient coin collectors, this is, and should be, the final arbiter in your evaluation of a coin. Third party grades are nothing more than a curiosity and to ascribe any higher level of importance to those grades is a mistake.

 

I hope you realize that many of these Aureus that show up in market are good fakes minted on cheaper Islamic dinar flans to trick the dealers. I know a close friend who runs a workshop in Bulgaria and he once told me that most of these aureus come from Bulgarian workshops (including the one he runs) that use the mediaeval Islamic flan of dinars (they are fairly cheaper 200-500 USD) to create aureus that worth 4000+ . The only suggestion I have for people who collect roman gold is ONLY buy when you know the provenance goes back to at least 1980s or before otherwise you can be fairly sure that you are buying a well done fake

 

You should keep better company.

 

Do you one example you can share here?

 

Here is one example made by one of Bulgarian workshops. As I said almost all Aureus coins that lack provenance are coming from these workshops.

https://ibb.co/nbN4fSd

 

I do not collect dinars but I believe they weigh almost half what an aureus does. Is the process to melt 2 dinars? The coin you linked could show a dinar under type but the weight does not match up.

 

Even 2 VF or F dinars could be bought at 300-500 so the huge margin is there and that is a huge incentive for the forgery workshops in Bulgaria. Here you can see 11 Islamic gold coins sold 700 GBP , a great price to make few Aureus.

https://www.icollector.com/ISLAMIC-...1-Abbasid-Dinars-3-141h-186h-208h-Fa_i8667106

 

Hmmmm..... SteveBulgar. Don’t feed the trolls.

 

What are you talking about Nemo? I guess whoever tell you the truth , which is heavy for you to listen , you will label him instead? I just said what a friend of mine who DOES work in a workshop, told me. I shared it with collectors here out of pity for many collectors who love roman gold but don't know what they are getting in reality. Now you can label me as much as you wish if it makes you happy

 

Looks like he's already been banned.

His claims don't make sense. A dinar is supposed to weigh around 4.25 grams. That's not the correct weight for an aureus, which should weigh 7.8 grams for early imperial and 7.3 grams for Post Nero aurei. How can one overstrike an aureus on a dinar when the weight is so far off?

Melting the dinars and then striking aurei at the correct weight from them MAY be possible. But you will still need access to well engraved dies. Anyhow that's not what he claimed.

Either a troll or badly informed.

 

Yes, definately something smells fishy with this thread addition
Islamic AV Dinars (I have lots in my coll.) are different in gold content, size of flan, thickness....
If, there are amateur forgers in Bulgaria doing this, they better get proper training
I have only seen one fake AV Roman coin that fooled me (it was so expertly crafted, I am still amazed)
That was the Ahenobarbus Aureus, from NFA Auction. I doubt if any forger in Bulgaria is capable of such a coin.