Rare, Very Rare, Extremely Rare

One of my general parameters in my collection is: if i can find a comparable example of a coin in a year or two, I shouldn't buy that one now. I have a broad enough focus so this doesn't tangibly slow down my buying but it does encourage me to look for tougher pieces which represent rarer opportunities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

When an auction house is looking up a coin in one of the standard references and it says "rare", then they put it in their auction listing. That standard reference may be a hundred years old and there may be plenty more examples found but hey it says rare in the catalog. I think it's as simple as that why you keep seeing the word rare for coins we know are not that hard to find.

 

I love this coin. Not only of its incredible History, but also the Philosophy. It is pretty Hard to Get. And, it was minted when He was a Prince under his father's reign.

Namaste,
Brian

India -
Shakya Janapada
AR 5-Shana
6th-5th Century BCE
25mm x 21mm, 7.05g
Obv: Central Pentagonal punch plus several banker's marks
Rev: Blank
Ref: Hirano Type I.8.29
19 known.

Coinage from the Ghaghara Gandak River region
Minted in the Shakya Janaprada during Siddhārtha Gautama's lifetime (Later became the Buddha) while he was prince, and under the authority of his father as King

 

Not particularly rare but:

Magnus Maximus from 383-388 in the Western Empire. Initially, as commander of Britain he led a revolt against Gratian. Through negotiation with Theodosius I and the intercession of the bishop Ambrose he assumed control of Britain, Gaul, Hispania, and Africa as an emperor in the West.

In 387 he invaded Italy but in 388 he was defeated by Theodosius at the Battle of the Save and was eventually executed. Meanwhile, Arbogast, one of Theodosius' generals executed Maximus' son Flavius Victor by strangulation.

Maximus' capital was Trier, from which he ruled over the west for a few years. He has a fairly interesting coinage, with coins struck in all three metals. This example is an AE2 of Arles.

Magnus Maximus, 383 - 388 A.D.

AE 2, 24mm 5.7 grams

Obverse: DN MAG MAXIMVS PF AVG
Diademed head right, draped and cuirassed

Reverse: REPARATIO REIPVB
Maximus standing left, crowned by Victory, raising kneeled, turreted figure of a woman

Mintmark: TCON (Arles)

Reference: RIC IX, 26A, Sear 20650

Feel free to post any Maxmus coins you have!

 

Here's another one that is supposed to be "rare"

Lucius Verus on horseback, riding down a Parthian.

Lucius Verus, 161-169 A.D.

Type: AE As, 25.5 mm 12.1 grams, R1 according to ACSearch

Obverse: L VERVS AVG ARMENIACVS, Bare-Headed Bust Facing Right

Reverse: TRP IIII IMP II COS III, Emperor on Horseback Charging right holding spear, riding down foe.

Reference: TBD, not in Wildwinds - edit: RIC 1404, rare type

 

Here are some quantified stats from searching on CoinArchives for the following phrases:

Total records: 1,673,137
Rare: 229,032: ~13%
Very Rare: 54,215: ~3%
Extremely Rare: 25,323: ~1.5%
Unpublished: 12,097: ~0.7%
Unique: 5,320: ~0.3%

They don't include phrases like "common as dirt" in auction descriptions but this at least shows that there is some meaning when dealers use particular phrases. I'm pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of these stats as I feel like these terms are usually overused.

 

I don't know how to rate my coins but tend to go with 'hard to find' this is probably innacurate as that would depend on how long you want to search!.....Here's a few 'harder to find'...Maybe??
Marcus Aurelius Sestertius RIC III 997

Plotina BMC18

Marius RIC 17

Vardanes I Chalkous Sellwood 64 type variant

Jaya Simha Legend varient...Trident right.

 

Thank you... as I see it from your search finding, approx 18% of total Ancient Coins are perhaps "Hard / Harder to Get".

That really pleasantly surprises me too for its relative accuracy. My thoughts are:
- There were MANY Entities that has gone extinct
- Many coins that were melted down or overstruck out of existence
- The pure passage of time of anywhere from 1500 to 2500 years.
- Coins are truly lost (dropped, destroyed, etc.)

HOWEVER, there would always be a coin or two saved, squirreled away, set aside, etc. that would contribute to a coin type being "found" and that would be a rarity. This would be coupled with the fact that SO many VARIETIES of coins were minted over SO many Entities and SO many years of producing coins.

Very nice. Thanks, @AncientJoe for getting the thoughts flowing...

 

In their book: “The London Mint of Constantius & Constantine” the authors (Cloke, H. J. & Toone, L.) claim their rarity rating system is based on hoard finds and analysis.

 

Thanks - yup, the Mag Max is mine. Acsearch is a fantastic tool. Yes, there's a fee if you want your searches to include results, but it's quite reasonable. (50 euros a year, maybe? I can't remember.) If you buy more than a dozen coins a year it easily pays for itself. CoinArchives is also great, but expensive.

@Roman Collector did a far more thorough investigation of your Aemilian. (One small correction, though: the earlier legend is PIVS FEL AVG rather than P F AVG.) Mine is the earlier RIC 7, but with a standard between Aemilian and the tripod. RIC notes this as a variant "needing confirmation." There are a couple on acsearch. Does anyone care? Probably not. Though NAC speculates it's a first issue, with a generic portrait because the engravers didn't know what he looked like. I suppose that adds some interest. (It does for me.)

As others have said, rarity by itself doesn't mean a lot. If it's non-flyspecking though (e.g. a reverse design), or has some special numismatic or historical significance that makes it significantly more desirable than its run-of-the-mill competitors, then rarity can make the price rise quickly.

 

I agree. There are factors that determine a coin's desirability that go beyond the issue of rarity. But I also think a key factor is a collector's proclivity to favor certain factors, such as artistry, patina, execution of the strike, flan shape, surface condition, etc.

The fact is, though, that certain coins have an almost universal appeal, especially to non-collectors, such as the Athenian tetradrachms from the 5th century BC. They carry with them the history of one of the pillars of western civilization, an appealing design and a good heft in the hand. I think these qualities go a long way to explain the seemingly insatiable demand for these coins, in light of the vast inventory of available coins.

Now, the issue of rarity is, I think, one of importance to the collector who specializes in a given field of ancients. Depending on the field, very rare examples can be obtained at very reasonable prices, while in others, such as Athenian tetradrachms, the cost of obtaining, say, a Starr III or IV owl can only be accomplished by breaking the bank, assuming that one has a bank large enough to break.

So, here are three owls, ranked in rarity. Which one is more appealing? It's in the eye of the beholder.

Athens tetradrachm, after 449 BC.



Athens tetradrachm, heterogeneous, 3rd century BC, with vines on reverse.

Imitation of Attic tetradrachm, South Arabia, Kingdom of Ma'in, folded flan.



I must say that I found the last coin quite appealing, in its own way, not long on refinement, but charming in its crude way, and as a collector of imitative coinage, a key acquisition for me.

 

Severus Alexander wrote regarding the order of Aemilian's two obv. legends: (One small correction, though: the earlier legend is PIVS FEL AVG rather than P F AVG.)

No, Roman Collector is correct: the IMP CAES P F AVG legend came before PIVS FEL AVG.

Mattingly himself in RIC, p. 189 added a note that the order of these two legends should be reversed from what he had written in the catalogue text.

One argument for this corrected order: on Aemilian's rare muled sestertius RIC 55, taking over the AETERNITAS AVGG type of his predecessor Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilian's obv. legend is IMP CAES P F AVG rather than PIVS FEL AVG. So IMP CAES P F AVG should be the earlier legend.

 

Thanks, @curtislclay! Good to know about the corrected order. I wasn't actually intending to say anything about the order; instead I wanted to point out that the legend is IMP AEMILIANVS PIVS FEL AVG, rather than IMP AEMILIANVS P F AVG as RC put it. (In trying to save space/time I ended up being totally unclear.)

 

There are contexts that make certain issues from certain places of certain rulers rare. For instance Magnus Maximus is by no means a "rare" figure -- he minted enormous amounts of copper maiorinae and some AE4s and rather consistent siliqua issues at his main mints in Trier, Lyon and Arles for around 5 years. What makes OP's siliqua rare (or very rare) is not the fact that it was minted by Maximus, but the fact that it was minted at Aquileia during his short aventurist stint in Italy in 387. At the same time, what makes @Severus Alexander's maiorina extremely rare is the fact that it was minted for an extremely short period by Theodosius around 384 during a short detente between himself and Maximus, in which an unlikely event happened: an usurper by Roman law standards was briefly recognized as legitimate by a legitimate emperor. Try to find another maiorina of the Theodosius type for Maximus and you will probably spend many years with 0 finds. Perhaps you won't find another one period. Try finding another issue of Maximus, including his siliquae, including a siliqua of Aquileia, and you will find them. Most of them being common and affordable enough.

I for instance think this is a rare coin:


a denier parisis of Louis IX of 1245/50 Duplessy 191. It is listed and known about but you don't really find them. Why? That's hard to tell -- while the denier tournois of Louis IX is commonplace, the parisis is mostly non-existent. Might be on the account of the way he organized the costs and finances of his Crusade, which was done in deniers tournois, thus causing a phasing out of the parisis in the 13th century. This is not really explained.

Which leads to another point: who cares?

For instance not not many care enough to look for these rarities, which is fine by me, as this one was 13EUR shipped.

 

I think Aemilian is the only emperor with a legend including "TR P I". Usually if a legend notes TR P and it is the first, the "I" is omitted.

 

In his Checklist of Islamic Coins (3rd ed., p. 3), Steve Album lays out a simple rarity scale that I find very useful and generally applicable to the broad range of early coins.

 

Severus Alexander,

Excuse me for attempting to correct an error you hadn't made!

 

We often see the phrase "supply and demand" in the context of price. However, we often consider the concept of rarity to belong only to the supply side. The Steve Album scale under "rare" mentions demand, which is an important factor. There are many late Roman AEs that are "r2" (very rare) or higher in RIC for which there is almost no demand because the type is common and it is only some uninteresting minor variety that qualifies it as r2.

Julius Caesar portrait coins are, considering supply alone, common. Nevertheless, considering both supply and demand, Album's "rare" fits. I imagine over half the CT members would seriously consider buying a Julius Caesar portrait piece if the price were "right." In Album's terms, demand outstrips supply. They are rare.

In contrast, there are many Roman provincial types of which fewer than ten exist. If they have a temple, or a labor of Hercules, or some other interesting feature, you might well categorize them as "rare" or "very rare." But, it they don't have a noticeable special interest, a supply of one per year may meet or even exceed demand.

When the book "Marcianopolis" by Hirstova and Jekov came out each type was given a rarity. So far so good. However, they included a page with a table of values for the various rarities, which is useless. An R3 (R3 is common in that book; it goes from R1 to R10) AE17 with a dull reverse does not have the same value a large R3 with the three graces on the reverse.

It is my impression that many dealers and collectors are invested in the concept of rarity that only includes supply and not demand. I doubt its usage can be changed at this late date. That usage is fine if you can (and you should) mentally separate rarity and value. Album's definitions above omit mention of the demand side for "very rare" and "extremely rare." Do they refer to counting numbers extant, or to comparing supply and demand? Is it intentional that high demand is enough to promote a coin to "rare" but only low supply can promote it to "very rare"?

The value of a coin is connected to the story it can tell and how it fits into a collectable series. I wrote about rarity on a web page:
http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/rarity.html

I support Steve Album's use of the word "rare." Demand matters. On the other hand, the number extant is interesting and is commonly described using rarity. Just don't think the number extant has much to do with value unless there is demand for that particular type.

 

I like that system! It's practical.

 

When I look at rarity in terms of the Second Punic War era coins I collect one of the big factors I look at is who among the specialists of the series has or had an example. I know several of the specialists who collect these coins in any sort of comprehensive manner and I know their collections relatively well. If none of them have a given silver type for instance, I can be pretty sure it qualifies as "extremely rare". Varieties(in the sense of slight stylistic variations, legend errors, etc) tend to be a little different. Sometimes no one cares about those, but for the most part all of these collectors care about collecting all or most of the individual types, and a coin is at best scarce if all have that individual type.

Number on the market can be a good proxy as well but can be deceiving because of the sheer number of errors there are in attribution of these early series. A friend recently asked if the Crawford 78/1 "staff" denarius was really as rare as it appeared to be from the number of ACSearch. The answer was "sort of" because there are more misattributed examples on ACSearch under 89/2, 106/3, and a handful of other Crawford numbers, and won't come up under a search for the actual type. This type is at best scarce when one looks at its inclusion in major collections.

Die numbers can be a good proxy as well, as less dies tend to mean higher rarity but occasionally that too can be deceiving. Some dies have a freakishly large number of survivors even though there's seemingly nothing weird going on. Some series are likewise rare on the market but struck from a number of dies and virtually all examples seem to have a new die on at least one side, if not both.