Thinking about making a ring with my favorite coin

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you, this was the kind of reply I was looking for. Might look at just getting one of the repro coin rings.

 

i just watched this again 'bout 4 nites ago... got your mind right Luke?!?

 

I'm just pullin' your chain ... "welcome"

Oh, but I am "not" a fan of anybody damaging a coin of any type (but if you do make a ring, then I hope that it's awesome)

=> catch and release

 

As others have said, it's your coin and you may do what you like, but turning them into jewelry does damage them. Also consider this:

By this logic, I should be able to touch the Mona Lisa without damaging it. True. But if enough people had the same thought process and decided what they personally did wouldn't matter, then that painting would be gone. Same with the coins. If enough of us damage them for jewelry, there may eventually be none left.

(Welcome, btw - this and slabbing ancients will bring out the strong feelings here...)

 

Dude, just make your coin out of an ancient Chinese washer. I doubt anyone here would complain, except for maybe 2 or 3 of us.

Speaking of ancient washers... @stevex6 , did you see my new one?


Xin Dynasty
Wang Mang
AE Bu Quan (26mm, 3.52g)
O: Bu Quan, Double rim with two portrutions radiating from the upper left and right corner of the inner rim
R: Blank as made
Hartill 9.71
Wang Mang, Gratzer & Fishman C4.7(a) (Pg. 77).
NOTE: Scarse issue

 

I'd say about 99% of the ancient collectors here already don't like slabbed coins so when asked about coins being made into rings that's why you're getting such blunt responses. Also I think a coin being made into a ring is going to devalue it way more than just taking it out of the slab.
It's not really what you're planning on doing I don't think but if you search 'Caligula ring' on this site you can see a coin absolutely ruined by being made into a ring.

 

...coulda fooled me><

 

now that would be much more acceptable. good idea!

 

Or get a fake made into a ring. They deserve it!

 

Just in case this was a serous request rather than trying to get or dander up:

This gold solidus of Theodosius II is one of the most common Roman gold coins. Before I got it for very little more than melt, it was removed from a four prong mount that held the coin so both sides could be seen. Jewelers will tell you their mounts are perfect now. They lie. I'm not a rich person so the person who mounted this coin actually did me a favor since I would not otherwise have bought a gold coin even one with a missing nose and four little dents on each side.

I am even more sensitive about this matter because of something I once did that came way too close to a capitol offence. I found a coin in a junk box that had the portrait side pretty much destroyed but had a decent reverse I though my wife would enjoy as a pendant. At the time I did not collect late Roman to any degree but the coin had a nice Christian symbol and the diameter fit a cheap quarter mount quite well. My wife wore it many times back in the 80's and 90's and stil does on occasion but I would prefer she not lose it. One day we went to a dinner at a friend's house who introduced us to a friend of his (who posts here now) who was an expert in late Roman. He noted the coin and pointed out that the type was not known to exist from the mint shown in the mintmark (Siscia). For a brief moment I had to address the possibility that I had made jewelry out of the only coin of Magnentius from Siscia that survived antiquity. We went on to determine that the coin is unofficial or barbarous so while it may quite possibly be the only one of its kind to exist, it does not have a huge place in numismatic scholarship. Perhaps my suitable punishment is to be drawn but not quartered??? I plead ignorance and really did not know it was in any way different from ten thousand other Chi-Rho reverse coins so destroying it was no big thing. Enjoy your ring. Sell the tetradrachm to someone who collects Alexander and would appreciate it.

 

How about if you try to find an Alexander drachm that has already been damaged and put that in the ring? That will let you have the conversation piece with an authentic specimen, and you won't have any collectors go full-out anal orfice on you.

 

Hi,

Thanks for seeking opinion here first and apologies for some of the harsh (disturbing?) reactions by other members.

Here is mine:

Ancient coins are pieces of history, not jewellery. Each of us holds a duty to future generations to preserve any ancient coins which we hold in our possession. Ownership is not permanent. We are not permanent.

Think of the recent destruction to important ancient sites such as Palmyra and the unimaginable loss we felt when we saw the photos.

People today still lament the destruction of the Library of Alexandria even though that happened centuries ago!

Treating a coin as a piece of jewellery can and will cause irreversible damage. Also unless it is fully encased, it will be exposed to wear from physical contact. Coins are not meant to be handled constantly. Look at a modern coins in circulation and how quickly their features begin to wear due to constant handling. My wedding band is covered in scratches and developed signs of wear in just 2.5 years!

Finally, from the photos I do not believe your coin is EF. I think it has been over-graded. But it it was EF, that would be even more reason to avoid exposing it to further damage and wear.

It is nice coin nonetheless and one that you deserves a proud place in your collection, not on your finger.

Let me suggest an alternative - make a cast copy of this coin. Just the obverse so you are not creating a modern forgery. Mount that in a coin and wear it with the comfort that it will cause your coin no damage, and with the confidence that it is still a conversation piece with a direct link back to a coin you actually own.

 

This was ridiculous even though it was Friday night. Members were put on time out for a while, but remember, just a small violation may trigger a temporary ban or a full one if you have accumulated points that have not expired. Jim

 

There were certainly some intemperate comments that I wouldn't have expressed the same way. But I think there was some legitimate debate here too, and some people have conveyed strong opinions without impugning the person or using immoderate language. I thought the last comment nailed it, actually, and spoke to the wider concerns. I hope you can consider leaving this up, even if it means removing more of the individual comments.

 

..why of all the Nerva....

 

I know I'm a bit late to this party and the mods seem to have already stepped into this thread but I want to first of all say welcome @HBrider and your coin is a beauty. Our community is usually a very friendly place so I hope you don't let this thread scare you off from continuing to post.

I was recently at a museum exhibit on luxury items of the Roman Empire and many of the items were beautiful pieces of ancient jewelry created with coins as the centerpiece?




I'm curious how many of you consider the above items to be horrid abominations? I tend to think they are unique, beautiful and interesting in their own way.

I don't really harbor the same revulsion to the idea in principle as many of you do, however...

I say that turning an ancient coin into jewelry is definitely not something that I would do and I think it's bad for the preservation of the coin. I don't want to be the one responsible for depriving future generations of the ability to enjoy these pieces of history. (Also it would be a shame as that coin is so nice!) But also I don't think we should try to shame people out of enjoying thier property on their own terms. Small step between that and the cultural property nuts who try to shame the rest of us for even owning ancient coins. JMHO

 

I guess I'm in between you and the cultural property nuts! Would it be OK to cremate a Van Gogh, as on Japanese billionaire threatened to do? Or play darts with a Rembrandt, to give counterfactual from recent book title? I say no; there are responsibilities coming with ownership, even if it's not practical or desirable to legislate for those responsibilities.

 

I agree with your line of thinking when it comes to willful destruction however he is not proposing to melt the coins down for bullion or intentionally destroy anything. He is simply considering an alternate use for the coin that has been among the uses for coins since they were first minted in antiquity (such as the museum jewelry).

That being said I still advise against it and wouldn't do it myself but I figured this thread could benefit from another perspective.

...And also maybe a hug or two

 

well, he came on here asking what the peeps thought about it and if it would hurt the coin. i think he got his answer. but i must say it's been a hell of a ride on this thread. before i'd post anything akin to such a question, i'd rather play tag in a leper colony 1st.