Doug recently showed an example of a Scaurus, Hypsaeus denarius, asking what was wrong with the coin. Even after some close scrutiny, I couldn't figure out at all what might be wrong with it (tell us already, Doug!). Fast forward a week or so, I'm looking at an example of the same type that joined my collection from a recent large group lot purchase. Taking a second look, I noticed that something was definitely wrong with it. Anyone care to take a stab at it?
I give up. The visible portions of the legends are correct when compared to others of the type; the devices look okay.
That's a very fine Cru coin, like a good wine Crawford lists about 20 spelling variants or errors under his 422 listing. This one is missing. Unpublished as far as I know. Incidentally Doug and I have had an offline on the other coin. The question by Doug was tongue in cheek and in expanded version was "what's so wrong with this coin that Andrew McCabe felt he needed to sell it" So I explained to Doug that I sold the coin because I bought one in similar condition with a 1956 auction provenance. There was nothing wrong with the coin but the addition of good provenance made the switch good for me; I incidentally thought my new one to be a bolder strike but also slightly more worn than Doug's. There's no such thing as two exactly equivalent coins. My new example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/32684779644/
Unusually fine example, bordering on exceptional. I have been seeking a well struck example of this type since the late 1980s, and have so far failed to find, or win where I have found, one as good as this. If you get bored with it, sell it to me.
Wow! Greetings Mr. McCabe, thank you for the offer and I'll definitely give you that option if I tire of it. For now, however I'm still very much attached to it. Many thanks for your awesome contributions to the study of ancient coins!
Very nice Scaurus @zumbly ! No, I will not take a stab at it! I figgerred someone would nail it, and @Andrew McCabe came to the rescue, including @Deacon Ray 's fantastic example! I have a Scaurus, but not as cool as your unpublished! CONGRATS! RR Aemilius Scaurus and Plautius Hypsaeus 58 BC AR Denarius camel scorpion quadriga 4.1g 19mm Rome Cr 422-1b
I was surprised to not find it listed in Crawford, where so many other variants were. I guess this goes towards your comment in the other thread about this whole issue being more than a little messed up. I've always considered myself fortunate when I've managed to win one of your coins at auction and never for a moment stopped to think anything might have been wrong with them . Here are a few of my favorites...
Excellent find, Z. This issue as a whole was so haphazardly made and so few people pay really close attention to them that there are probably more unpublished varieties like yours floating around waiting to be noticed. It's a great example of the benefits of paying close attention and knowing your coins well.
Those are three fantastic coins. I regret not owning them any longer. They are really terrific. - I now have a better Crepereia with a great provenance - I regret selling the Scribonia anvil type. I've never found a replacement. I've minor feelings of envy on seeing it again. I'll avert my eyes and it'll go away - I have a more worn but more complete Pharos. But I still prefer the surfaces and relief of your coin. Mild pangs of regret only, on seeing my old coin again.
That Creperius is tremendous, and what a fantastic little crab on it, too! As for the Pharos, I’m just floored seeing one as complete and struck as centered as it is. If your Pharos had a window still there, my heart probably would have stopped beating for a second. Sorry, the windows are just my thing with this particular issue .
I find it curious that I've been asked about my old coins twice this week on this forum. They all still have a special place in my heart. I posted an especially ugly ex McCabe dolphin sextans on the "worst coin" thread this week. It's still a good coin despite its asteroid like surfaces. I tend to see the new owners of my old coins as all dedicated and serious collectors, and that may be why there's been surprisingly consistent pricing for my old stuff (as discussed on another thread today). You know what this stuff is worth. There'll be another outing in October. I'll have a Labienus, a nice Caesar portrait (pre-Ides!), a Sekhmet, an Armenian Tiara, an Egyptian crocodile, the Plancus with jugs and stuff both sides, Pompey's Pietas and the rarest Imperatorial denarius issue (482) to pass on to new collectors, along with a bunch of other rarities. Dunno. Not sure I wanna let them go.
As Andrew said, we discussed the insider joke by private conversation. I recently sold what I considered a great example of this coin (to one of you, I believe) but I wanted to 'upgrade' by my definition. Andrew wanted to upgrade by his definition so he sold the coin I bought replacing it with a coin that I would not consider an upgrade for my purposes. Provenance is now much more important than it once was. Lack of wear is more important to most people now than it is to me. What I liked about the coin I got was the closer to complete legends. My previous one was weaker on REX ARETAS. Andrew's new coin is better in that respect but lacks full height PREIVE. It does have the R at the end that was only on some dies. It also has a really fine scorpion. My new: Andrew's new: The one I recently sold was tight on several sides but did not lose all of anything. I liked the style better than my new one but I wanted more legends. It also shows the thunderholt that overlaps the border better than any. My previous: What is wrong with these coins? Absolutely nothing. We all make our choices based of parameters of our own invention. Someone out there may have one that is better than all of these in every respect but I have seen many offered that were mint state and did not show a single bit of CAPTV. Each coin has something going for it. Who cares? Some of us do more than is easy to explain.
Well said. All great coins. It's just as well we all don't want the same thing. A friend asked me yesterday would it be feasible to only collect Republican denarii with pre 1970 provenances. I said it would be perfectly feasible - you'd only have to bid too high on every old provenance coin. It would cost an immense amount and the quality would be on average terrible, or at least sub optimal. That's too far for me. I'm at a level of compromise where I'll pick the old provenance coin each time, provided it's still a good coin. It doesn't have to be the best condition.
You never know where a thread will lead here on CoinTalk and this one has been very interesting I have no Scarus-Hypsaeus denarius to show but will throw in my ex-McCabes. This Egnatius Maxsumus may lack legends and reverse details but it has wonderful eye appeal nonetheless: Roman Republic moneyer C. Egnatius Cn. f. Cn. n Maxsumus 75 BCE AR denarius, 19 mm, 3.82 gm Obv: bust of Cupid right, with bow and quiver over shoulder; behind, MAXSVMVS downwards Rev: distyle temple with figures of draped Jupiter and Libertas standing facing within; C EGNATIVS CN F below, CN N upwards to right, control to left Ref: Crawford 391/2; Sydenham 788 ex Andrew McCabe ex Vecchi Auction 15, 15 June 1999, lot 738 I was a little hasty with this Carisius and might someday try for one with a better reverse since that's the money side of this coin (all meanings intended ). Roman Republic moneyer T. Carisius, 46 BCE AR Denarius, 18 mm, 3.62 gm Obv: head of Juno Moneta right; MONETA behind Rev: implements for coining money: anvil die with garlanded punch die above; tongs and hammer on either side; T CARISIVS above; all within laurel wreath Ref: Crawford 464/2; CRI 70; Sydenham 982a; Carisia 1a ex Andrew McCabe And one that isn't an ex McCabe, just because I like it and want to show it again Roman Republic moneyer Q. Crepereius M.f. Rocus 69 BCE (revised from Crawford's 72 BCE) AR serrate denarius; 3.99 gm Obv: draped bust of Amphitrite seen from behind, with head turned r.; behind, sea anemone; horizontal I to right of right shoulder (only partly visible on this coin) Rev: Neptune in biga of hippocamps right, holding reins and brandishing trident; above, I and below, Q·CREPER·M·F / ROCVS Ref: Crawford 399/1b; Babelon Crepereia 1. Sydenham 796a. from HJB BBS 200, October 2016 ex NAC 78 lot 1828, from the JD Collection of Roman Republican Coins Spectacular reverse!
Since we're all talking about what's wrong with our examples of these denarii, here's my favorite of the two examples I have of the issue. Any idea what's wrong with it?
Probably should not have sold the Egnatius, the obverse is spectacular. The Egnatius has older provenances. I've seen it in passing in older catalogues. This will be both intriguing and frustrating to you I'm sure. When it concerns a recently dispossessed coin I often try advise the new owner of a found provenance, but this is many years back, and usually new owners stumble across in time the same provenances I have. Didn't expect to see this coin again!