Two recent Roma auctions offered the two denarii below. Cornucopiae (first) series AR Denarius. Rome, 207 BC. Helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) behind / The Dioscuri, each holding spear, on horseback to right, two stars above; cornucopiae below horses, ROMA in exergue. Crawford 58/2; BMCRR Rome 419; RSC 20h. 4.04g, 20mm, 7h. Price realized: 1100 GBP Crescent (first) series AR Denarius. Rome, 207 BC. Head of Roma right, wearing winged helmet ornamented with griffin's head; X behind / The Dioscuri on horseback to right, each holding couched spear; crescent above; ROMA in relief in linear frame below. Crawford 57/2; Sydenham 265; RSC 20i. 4.53g, 20mm, 11h. Price realized: 1800 GBP My question concerns the word (first) in the descriptions. They both went for prices way beyond what I would have expected, so they must be special. In what way were they (first), and is that why they were bid up so high?
They are both relatively common late Second Punic War denarii. Both are nice but the prices strike me as excessive, especially for the first which has a pretty nasty crack. They are both available in high grade and nice examples come up multiple times per year, usually cheaper, so I can't explain what happened with these. Here's my example of the crescent type. The surfaces aren't great but it was almost an order of magnitude cheaper at around $250+fees
I don't really know, but, when in doubt about sky high auction prices, just remember it only takes 2 bidiots to send the price through the roof.
Wow, that's a nasty... on that first one. Definitely not worth more than $120 in my opinion with such a nasty and clearly unstable...
The answer to your question about "(first)" is that the symbols in question were used for more than one series of coins and these examples are from the earliest issue. The Crescent is on Crawford 57 of 207BC and Crawford 137 of 194-190BC (and indeed Crawford 212 of ca. 155-149BC, though just asses in that issue), while the Cornucopiae symbol is on Crawford 58 of 207BC and Crawford 157 of 179-170BC. ATB, Aidan.
No - in fact, in these cases, the second crescent and cornucopiae issues are scarcer, going by the number of dies estimated. They're very nice coins, people can get carried away at auctions, that explains the prices ATB, Aidan.
Usually for a coin to qualify as such, the coin must be well centered. Neither of which is. The 1st has a major crack and the second has some rough planchet issues at 7 o'clock. I would not agree with your grade...
At least EF, but grading ancients is subjective. They are both beautiful coins, even with the issues mentioned and at least 2 other persons thought so too.
Absolutely, I'm not intending to downplay the immense quality of the coin, however by the standard I learned, it couldn't be considered FDC, doesn't mean it isn't a great coin still.
Coins at auction sell for several times their estimate when more than one person with pockets deep enough wants a coin. I found the Cr 58 auction. The coin went for 2.4 times estimate. My #1 coin this year went for 1.8 times estimate and the coin one lot earlier went for 3.3 times estimate. The final price at auction is a bit like tossing astragalus.
I cannot comment on the Crawford 58/2 coin but the Crawford 57/2 is an ex RBW coin which is plated No 218 in the book The RBW Collection published in 2013. That may have had an influence on those who were bidding on it.
That certainly helps explain it. I didn't look that bit up but that sort of provenance goes a long way these days.
It is a vase in the British Museum in the shape of an astragalus. If you google "Sotades astragalus" you can find plenty of pictures of it. https://research.britishmuseum.org/...6&page=1&partId=1&peoA=97868-1-7&people=97868 I like knuckle bones.
It's interesting to note that both of these coins were sold only a few months earlier in NAC auction 114, May 6-7, lots 383 and 383. The cornucopia coin realized CHF 300 and the crescent hammered for 800 (less than the 950 it realized in the RBW NAC 61 sale). Both of these (first) issues from the late 3rd century are considerably more common than the later early 2nd century cornucopia and crescent issues, but the style of these early issues are a bit more appealing (to me at least). Attached are examples of the (later) crescent and cornucopia issues, RRC 137/1 and RRC 157/1. The early 58/2 (cornucopia) issue is one of the more delightfully rendered issues of these early anonymous coins, but it is very frequently found in high grade as is this one. The rarity of the finest known of even the most common series is very high, but although superb, neither of these coins are the finest known specimens. As @Terence Cheesman suggested, the NAC 61 (RBW) pedigree probably had a lot to do with the ultimate hammer price. As suggested, obviously there were at least two bidders who wanted these two high grade example now, rather than waiting for subsequent sales.