Guys, that last batch was so fun, I bought a few more coins to learn about today. Obviously, these don't fit the "save up for something you'll treasure" category, but I'm enjoying the learning stage. Was a bit out of my normal area and found a dealer who came across a box of ancients that had been there for a few years - already cherry picked. They were nice to talk to, so I pulled out a nasty lichen-filled coin that was marked Caligula and said "I like him -- he was so insane that he made his horse a Senator" and then balked at the price of $20. Pulled out this coin which was marked Vespasian with a question mark next to it. The head looked like Constantine to me, and in the dim light, I was pretty sure I saw Const in the legend, so snagged it for a much reduced price. Not the prettiest coin, but it had a legend that was obviously mis-attributed, so I gave it a go. On Wildwinds, I figured out the rest of the text, and decided it was Constantius I - but the only example of it with the IMP C CONS... and the SAC MON.. reverse was called RIC VI 120a var. I looked elsewhere and found some that had a wreath or a crescent between the R and the P. This one doesn't appear to have any such mark. Looks like whomever cleaned the dirt off didn't complete the job. Perhaps someday when I'm free, I'll give it a go... Any thoughts on the attribution? The 120a was described as "Rare." The then found a couple of plastic 2x2s with a few coins to look at and I snagged these next two at a nice price as well. One is greek again -- love the eagle. 19mm and Having trouble with the text -- haven't learned all the different ways the Greek coins start out yet. The ETOVC E on the reverse wasn't terribly helpful as it appears to be on many coins. On the obverse, I'm sure I'm getting my A's and Lambda's and such all mixed up. Any tips on an emperor to search? Last one is tiny -- 12mm or so, but it had a cross inside a wreath. Looks like it says ROTC under the wreath. The obverse didn't have much wear on it, but didn't have the full strike either. I read that Theodosius, Valentinian III, Honorius and Arcadius did some like this, but the writing on the front looks like chicken scratch rather than a usual D N or IMP or the like. Thoughts? Had these been nicer coins, is there anything you seen about the surfaces/etc... that I should have been wary to make me avoid them? Thanks!
Glad to see you're having fun, Snewman . I believe you've already nailed the first one with the RIC VI 120a var attribution. 120a is itself listed in RIC as being scarce, with the mintmark being RS. Yours is the same as the wildwinds example with RP as the mintmark, and hence 120a var. I haven't seen any with a crescent or a wreath in the mintmark, do you have a link to an example? I'm afraid I can't be of much help with the other two, but the second coin is a late 3rd century AD potin tetradrachm of Alexandria... you could call these Greek Imperial, or Roman Provincial. I don't collect these, but many others here do and will be along with help soon. My wild guess would be Maximianus. I think you did well with these just by virtue of the fact that they don't seem to be missing any devices that will prevent them from being attributed. The potin tet actually looks pretty good, too... I've seen many (from a distance ) that look alot worse.
Nice haul Snewman! When I started out collecting ancients I had a lot of fun going to local coin stores and perusing their ancient coin "junk" boxes. It was like searching for hidden treasure. I found most of the dealers around where I live didn't have those coins attributed, and really had no idea what they were or what they were worth. So I'd do the same thing you are doing, pick a few I liked, get what I thought were great prices on them, and take them home and try to attribute using WildWinds or some of the other sites. Unfortunately I can't help on the attribution of your last two. Someone with more experience will chime in. Well done on the NewPs though.
Here's a link to one with a wreath between the two letters: http://www.beastcoins.com/RomanImperial/VI/Rome/Rome.htm There are also the same reverse with a crescent, but not with IMP C CONST... on the front. I was looking at the text in wildwinds for scarcity - do you have a link to the official scarcities? Thanks!
Thanks for the clue! Wildwinds didn't have it, but I found another coin (Milne 4426) with the same reverse and a very similar obverse. That coin has 6 characters before AVPHLIANOC (AK L DOM AVPHLIANOC) and mine doesn't appear to have the AK. I don't even think there is room for it. (not sure if I can post other people's photos here, so just a link) http://www.ivargault.com/mynter/romerske/aurelianus_advers_1.jpg http://www.ivargault.com/mynter/romerske/aurelianus_revers_1.jpg I'll keep looking.
The one with the wreath in that link is RIC 132a, which doesn't have a star in the right field, as yours does. The slight variations you find in the field marks and mintmarks often signify different issuing periods for a series. In this case, RIC dates the one with the wreath as being the issue that follows yours. I'm afraid I don't know of a link that shows specifically shows RIC rarity ratings. In any case, these ratings need to be taken with a pinch of salt as they sometimes are either outdated, or do not reflect the true market scarcity of the coins.
As has been said before, you have to consider when RIC was published and how they took inventory. The rarity ratings of RIC have no validity in today's market.
This is important for a beginning collector to understand. RIC rarity ratings apply ONLY to the samples taken by the various authors of RIC, and as such are 100% accurate. They do not, however, necessarily correlate with the rarity of certain coins on the market today. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Dealers will frequently quote an RIC rarity as if it speaks to the value of the coin. It does not. It only refers to particular samples.
Makes sense. Looks like I need to read some about how/when RIC was compiled. I decided that the Greek Aurelian really is Milne 4426. Found one almost identical and the spacing works, so added text to the photo. Love that eagle. Still trying to figure out #3, the little coin with a cross in a wreath, in case anyone has some hints to reduce the pool size.
With ancients mintage numbers are not available. RIC rarities mean nothing or very little (there might be some value added from people who seek out coins with high RIC rarity ratings). Absolute rarity means almost as little because there are so many coin types that no one is trying to get them all. In US coins, many people want a complete set by date and mint mark so the ones that were made in smaller numbers or survive in smaller numbers have additional 'value' even though they are no more interesting than the common dates and are identical except for a date numeral or mintmark letter. Ancients vary more in types with many one year types and some that are just plain more interesting than others. No one is trying to get them all. More people want a coin that commemorates the murder of Julius Caesar than one that exists in the same number or less that shows some figure that next to no one knows and fewer care about. That is why I can own a $10 coin more rare than a $100,000 one. Eight people might want the 80 specimens of one while 8000 people want the 80 of the other. The only thing that matters is demand. Demand comes from interesting design, historical connection and beauty. Part of beauty is high grade. Have fun with coins. If you want to make money on them, don't buy fun but buy expensive, popular (high demand) and beautiful (high grade) only. If you want to have fun, buy coins you like. I like the Aurelian here quite a bit and the Theodosius II / cross from Constantinople (?) mint a little. $1000 worth of this sort of thing would bring me a lot more enjoyment than a single $1000 coin until the day I decided I wanted to sell them when I would be lucky to get 25% of my investment back rather than the profit the single coin might bring. Those are the two hobbies we know and from which we have to pick.
The only coin out of this group that I would have passed on is the first. I think the Aurelian tetradrachm is lovely, and the Theodosius II (I'm with Doug on that attribution) is quite good for what it is. The Valentinian and Theodosian dynasties churned out millions of scrappy, decrepit bronzes, and although yours isn't the best, it's nowhere near the worst. (If you want really nice coins from this bunch, head for the gold.) The Constantius follis with Moneta is not rare, and even the cheapest retail example I could find, at $24, is much nicer than yours. Click here. I hope you didn't pay too much for it.
Doug, I was just reading a page on Theodosius II when I saw your note. Was thinking that the COTI may actually be a CON. Thanks for the confirmation! The text is hard to make anything out of even though it has strong detail, just not a great engraver of tiny coins perhaps? Also appreciate the discussion on investment in this arena. About 6-10 years ago, I wanted the nicest Vespasian Judea Capta Denarius I could find. Ended up buying the one that is the photo example of RIC 2 (Sear 2296) on wildwinds. Pretty sure I could double my money on that now, but I certainly don't expect that sort of return on anything else I'm playing with. Your write-up sure sounds spot on for the market and is excellent advice. Much appreciated. While paying at or under $10 a coin to learn, I'm pretty comfortable with my price per learning point. As John Anthony suggested, perhaps I'll eventually need to start looking to the gold for the better detail.
Let me chime in. I would give $10 for each of the coins you have pictured although I do not particularly want any of them. In contrast to JA, I like the reverse of the Constantius coin, but the obverse leaves a lot to be desired. I do not particularly like LRB such as the Theodosius and as such pretty much stay away unless, like John said, they are in excellent condition for the type. The Potin Tet of Aurelian has fair detail and well worth the 10 bucks, probably more.
Thanks for your thoughts, Bing! I admit that this Constantius wasn't a great obverse and the photo is pretty accurate on it being beat up. I just wanted to solve it because the previous attributor was so far off base and the reverse was pretty decent. I'm not really in it for the money -- I'm more of a hoarder/learner. BTW, decided that the Theodosius II coin was RIC 445 / LRBC 2238 Thanks for the help, guys! I'll put my next finds / study pieces on this thread too to prevent cluttering up the board.
When we are in a hurry, some of us are more likely to visit new threads than ones that have been going a while and tend to have left the original subject or even coins. I agree with Bing that you should start a new thread for each coin or set.
