Thinking about making a ring with my favorite coin

Is it just me - or is my trollometer showing a particularly high reading in this thread?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think there is a large difference, considering these pieces were created by these ancient people themselves. As such, when they turned their money into jewelry, it adds to the story of their history for us to understand. If we do it, we destroy their history.

 

My view too.

 

I have a coin that is an ex jewellery mount piece. I prefer that it wasn't.


Divus Vespasian
AR Denarius, 3.26g
Rome mint, 79-80 AD
RIC T357 (C2), BMC T129, RSC 497
Obv: DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r.
Rev: Capricorns, l. and r., crossed, supporting round shield inscribed S C : below, globe


And here is one I saved from being mounted in a ring by a jeweller.


Domitian
AR Denarius, 3.10g
Rome mint, 85 AD
RIC 392 (R2), BMC - , RSC -
Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM P M TR P V; Head of Domitian, laureate, bearded, r.
Rev: IMP XI COS XI CENS P P P; Minerva stg. r. on capital of rostral column, with spear and shield; to r., owl (M2)

Very rare. Perhaps the fourth known specimen.

 

I would perfer not to buy ex jewelry coins for my collection and you make a good point that I tend to agree with... however (devils advocate alert) some of the coins were turned into jewelry during the late empire and were already centuries old at the time. So for instance you might have an aureus of Hadrian on the same necklace with Theodosius etc. and this doesn't ruin the history for us.

My point is that one or two coins used as jewelry as long as they are artfully done and well cared for like the above pieces doesn't necessarily ruin thier history for posterity. We all still love our ex jewelry coins and maybe they wouldn't have survived otherwise. Here is one of mine I think might be ex jewelry.


Also, consider the Theatre of Marcellus.

Do I wish that all Roman ruins where converted to renaissance palaces? Absolutely not, but this ONE is pretty interesting.

Who knows, in 500 years someone might say "this was worn by a real American just before the *blank* happened."... I don't know, worth thinking about.

 

I love it.... People telling you what to do with your stuff... If you dont mind it never being a coin worth slabbing down the road an you want a ring... Id love to see it when done. Its yours not societies... Now if it had historical significance and was a museum piece I dont think you would have considered ringing it.... Btw I make coin rings and people LOVE them I make the hole in center roll edge kind and everywhere you go people ask about it and usually we start talking coins I believe my rings have helped the collecting market not hurt it

 

It certainly doesn't help the case of collectors when we argue against further restrictions on our hobby and those on the other side can find examples like this of coins being purposefully damaged or destroyed.

 

He asked for our opinions regarding putting that coin in a ring, so yes, we are entitled to tell him what we think he should do with his property. If he didn't want us to tell him, he shouldn't have asked for us to tell him.

 

The OP asked for opinions. He certainly got that and more. Some were not appropriate, but he did ask.

 

I think the terms 'historical significance' and 'museum piece' imply acknowledgement of social claim. They speak to wider values. I think that as @red_spork implies, the debate gets too polarised between cultural property side arguing that historical objects should never be owned and can only be public property versus those saying there is only private property and people should literally be able to do whatever they like with anything they own, however historically or artistically important. When each side spends too much time talking to itself we can get too purist. There are sensible compromises that we should be able to debate soberly, recognising that reasonable people can differ.

 

Let me be clear, no ejections took place because of pro or con opinions on the subject matter, actions were because of the language. And on reconsideration and re-reading the thread, I agree at this point it will stay. I do wish everyone who re-read their posts before hitting the "reply" key, especially their language. All deleted posts were for language, some multiple times. Jim

 

We do not really own these coins, they are in our custody temporarily. These coins may well be around for another 2 thousand years. Coins like this are tangible pieces of history and they have lessons to teach us about the place of humans in our larger world. We may own the coins but this ownership is temporary and comes with the responsibility of protecting items of the past so we we have a historical context of present and future actions.

 

Moderating is a thankless task but your efforts are appreciated. Thank you. For what it's worth, I agree on all points and think you've called it right on the individual posts & overall thread.

 

I totally agree with this. Keep on destroying ancient and medieval coins and someday no private person will be legally allowed to own them.

We are temporary keepers of things that are already 2000+ years old.

 

Ditto

 

Orfew said it best...we are merely temporary custodians of these coins. Many of our coins may have been dug out of the ground in the 1500s-1700s, when digging for old Roman ruins was all the rage. Imagine if some of the at least 10+ owners these coins have had since then (some could have had as many as 100 owners since then) decided that because they "own" the coin they were going to put a hole in it, or put it in a ring, or do something else damaging to it? You would not have had the opportunity to enjoy that coin at all today (or at least not in its current condition) because of someone else's selfish act depriving you of that.

But because the previous temporary custodians of your coins took good care of them, didn't clean them excessively, stored them with care, and handled them gently, these coins are still here for you to enjoy today. Likewise, I think you have the same responsibility to future generations.

 

It's absolutely true that a lot of coins, ancient and modern, have been damaged by their use in jewelry, some slightly, some substantially. Unlike many here though, I have no objection on principle to using genuine ancient coins that way. It needs to be done very carefully by someone who knows exactly what they're doing. I make no apologies at all for designing this pendant for my wife and commissioning its manufacture. Anyone interested in the genesis of this piece can read more about it here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-nymphaeum-the-nymphaeum-the-nymphaeum-is-on-fire.272860/. And for the record, if a future owner opts to remove the coin from the pendant, my ghost will be sad about it, but I absolutely guarantee that the coin's jewelry history will be undetectable to even the closest, most minute examination. This coin hasn't been damaged or changed at all.

Phil Davis

 

That's a very nice pendant Phil, but like I said, I wore a silver denarius in a pendant for about a year. I wore it night and day. But in the end, the side of the coin that laid up against my chest the most was severely worn. I guess due to the oils in my skin as well as daily showers. I wish I still had the coin to show, but I don't. I also hope the coin in your wife's pendant will not show the wear my coin did.

 

go elsewhere to sell your wares!