So recently I've seen some ebay listings with "budget" denarius; after reading a couple of threads I've seen different examples, but my question is what sets a budget denarius apart from a normal denarius? is it a change in size? a variety? Any answer is appreciated.
"Budget" denarius (or substitute any other denomination or type) just means the price was much lower than most examples of the type, typically because of wear, corrosion, poor centering, weak strike, or other issues which keep the coin from commanding a higher price.
It's an opportunity to pick up some ancient coins at a reasonable price. Consider this - such coins have passed through many hands over time - who knows who might have held them in ancient times?
It's often it's a coded warning for a coin with corroded surfaces. If there's anything actually positive to say about a coin, such as "worn but terrific surfaces!", "would benefit from some cleaning!", the seller would say that positive thing. "budget" usually means there's irredeemable problems such as corrosion.
HJB often sells coins labeled as such. Here is one that I didn't mind being irredeemable. Seleucus III "The Tunderbolt" Mint: Antioch AR Tetradrachm 226 to 223 BC Obvs: Diademed head of Seleucus III r., with long sideburn, dotted border. Revs: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on r., ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ on l., Apollo, slight drapery on r. thigh, seated l. on omphalos, testing arrow and resting l. hand on grounded bow. Control marks in outer left and right fields 25mm, 16.82g Ref: SC 921.1 Note: Graffiti A inscribed in left field below control.
Coins can be 'budget' for many reasons. Rarely can it be called a complement but there are people who would rather have a budget coin than no coin at all. Some coins are budget at nice VF because there are thousands of nicer ones. Some are in high demand even when ugly because there are hundreds of people who want one in any condition. I I hate corrosion but sometime have to tolerate it. I don't mind wear within reason but where do we draw that line? Too worn? Too corroded?
Like @dougsmit said, it depends on the ruler and the demand. A budget Gordian III antoninianus (weakly struck reverse), being readily available in well-struck mint state, might look like this: Whereas a budget Cleopatra VII (yes, THAT Cleopatra), being in high demand in any grade, might look like this:
Interesting thread - it made me think about my own collecting decisions. My interpretation of "budget" is something I can afford that is also appealing - this can be a pretty subjective concept. Any ancient coin purchase is a kind of process for me. Below is a recent example of a "budget denarius" (by my definition) of Faustina I - it was $12.50 on eBay (seller's photos below). My rationales for buying it are as follows (though I am not sure how "rational" I am!): Condition: Despite the wear, I liked the overall "look" of it - smooth (not crystalized or porous) surfaces, pleasant tone. Furthermore, it is well-centered, and most of the legend is intact. The flan crack did not bother me much. The metal appears to be pretty good for the era (c. 60-80% silver or so). Weight is quite acceptable given the wear (3.14 grams). Type: The "veiled" busts of Faustina are somewhat harder to find than the non-veiled. Since I did not have any veiled examples, this would be new for me. I am not really a fill-the-hole collector, but I do keep an eye out for new-to-me things. Aesthetics: The portrait is a nice one, I thought; Faustina's denarii can vary wildly in workmanship and this one pleased me. Also, I liked the peacock throne reverse - a bit different than the usual goddess-standing-around types (I think Doug calls them that - very apt). Personal Preferences in Regards to Flaws: As several others have already suggested, every collector of ancients is faced much of the time with deciding which kind of flaws they "prefer." In my case, I am not bothered much by off-center strikes or flan cracks. Also, I am tolerant of quite a bit of wear, especially if it is "even" wear; also, toning can offset the wear to some extent (see my avatar). Holes and mount-marks do not bother me much either. To be sure, I'd rather not have these, but they will not quash the deal for me if the price is right - these are personal quirks which I cannot defend. On the other hand, I do not like porous or crystalized surfaces - for the most part this ruins it for me and I tend to avoid such coins. These preferences developed over time, and perhaps they will change. Price: I love bargains, perhaps too much so. But, for instance, any denarius under $20 definitely has my interest. Also, although I do not collect for investment, I like to think I can at least recover my purchase price somewhere down the line. In the case of my humble Faustina, I figure I could get $15.00 for it. Another way to justify such a purchase (which I learned from members here) is the "lunch" concept - I got an ancient work of art in silver for the price of a McDonald's lunch. And I saved on calories! Faustina I the Elder Wife of Antoninus Pius (141-161 A.D.) Rome Mint - Denarius DIVA FAVSTINA, veiled, draped bust right / AETERNITAS, draped throne against which rests scepter; in front a peacock standing right. RIC 353b; BMC 387. (3.14 grams / 18 mm)
I love Faustina I's coins. She was the first empress for whom a very extensive posthumous coinage was issued -- quite literally hundreds of issues by Antoninus Pius after her death. Yours has a lot going for it. As you say, the veiled busts are less typical for her coinage. This particular coin comes in a bare-headed version (RSC 61a); in additon, the same throne, peacock and scepter device is also to be found on denarii with the legend AVGVSTA, both with bare-headed and veiled portraits (RSC 132a and 132c, respectively; they are each very rare). Your particular coin (with the veiled bust) comes in two obverse legend varieties of unclear significance: BMCRE 387, reading DIVA-FAVSTINA, and BMCRE 388 (yours), reading DIVAFAV-STINA. Here's mine -- BMCRE 387: And here's the British Museum's example of yours, BMCRE 388: Wear doesn't bother me as long as the coin's attributable -- it's actually cool to think how many hands your coin passed through during the second century: the fingers of merchants, laborers, tax-collectors, prostitutes, priests, soldiers and sailors. Your coin's surface probably has traces of gladiator blood, centurion sweat, olive oil and pagan altar smoke!
Thank you for that information, Roman Collector - I see I was off on my BMCRE attribution - I will correct accordingly. I agree with you on Faustina I's coins - I love 'em too. The variety alone is astonishing, and they are affordable and abundant and some of them are quite beautiful. I recently got my first "lifetime" issue, also with a peacock - it is in pretty deplorable condition, but it was "budget" - $10. This is an example of a "budget" purchase where the type outweighed the aesthetics - I wanted a lifetime issue, but they are pretty scarce and usually not budget-priced. If this had been a more common posthumous issue, with the ragged flan and harsh cleaning, I probably would not have bought it. Faustina I the Elder Wife of Antoninus Pius (c. 138-141 A.D.) (Lifetime) Rome Mint - Denarius FAVSTINA AVGVSTA; draped bust right. / IVNONI REGINAE; throne, draped, sceptre against it; below peacock with tail spread. RIC 339a; RSC 219. (2.68 grams / 18 mm)
Here is a "budget" denarius. It is a posthumous issue of Julius Caesar. I bought this coin from a Frank Robinson auction and have never regretted it. Yes it is quite worn. However, I also think it has a very decent portrait for such a worn coin. It was my first coin of JC and was a placeholder until I got my lifetime portrait. However, I really like this coin and it is an important part of my collection. I believe a "budget" coin can still be a desirable coin.
I really like these budget buys. Here is one I got yesterday - a Julia Domna naked Venus from behind sestertius. This is one I really wanted. It came from an eBay seller in the Czech Republic who had it listed for $17 buy-it-now or best offer. Shamelessly, I offered $15 which she accepted. Shipping was a bit slow, of course, but she only charged me $4.99. I am very pleased with it, but I would like to upgrade some day. No, it doesn't really look better in hand... Julia Domna Æ Sestertius (193-196 A.D.) Rome Mint IVLIA DOMNA AVG draped bust right / VENERI VICTRI Venus, naked to waist, standing left from behind, apple in right hand, palm over left shoulder, left elbow resting on column RIC IV 842; Sear 6631. (21.98 grams / 28 mm)
Nearly all of my ancients are of the "budget" variety. I bought a lot of uncleaned lots and then moved up to the $10-15 Denarii and Ants back in the early 2000's during the wild west days of ebay. Haven't bought many ancients since then, but did buy a lot of reference books (8 of 10 RIC, Sears Roman, Greek and Byzantine volumes, Van Meter, and Carson/Hill/Kent LRB Coinage), so at least I learned something
Both of mine are budget coins. Which is better, worn or scratched? I prefer the style of the worn coin.
Budget: RI Faustina Jr 161-175 CE Ar Denarius m Marcus Aurelius 17-1mm 3g RI Augustus Quinarius - possibly Asia Recepta - blank wore-off-rev HALF-PRICE!!! RI Augustus 27 BCE-14CE AE As or Semis Spain Celsa Mint 29mm 5.0g Laureate Augustus - Bull RPC271 Cut in ancient times to make change
I like both of them Doug, but I agree, the worn one has a really terrific style. They're both better than mine!
