Being relatively new to ancients I have a lot to learn. On the US and World side, I really like counterstamps and chopmarks. I'm not sure yet about banker's marks and I'd like to hear the opinions of those more experienced with them. I recently picked up a coin which checked a couple boxes for me. 1st quinarius, 1st Octavian. Listed as unknown Italian mint (Rome), 29-28BC, CRI 429; RIC I 276; King 1; RSC 14 The mark on the nose is mildly annoying but the 2 on the cheek don't bother me at all. So, what are your thoughts on banker's marks in general. Thanks Jim
It's a very nice example of the type. Whether bankers' marks detract from a coin or not depends on personal aesthetics of course, but these don't bother me in the least, even the one on the nose. The quality of the rest of the coin far outweighs the punch in the nose.
So you're the one who stole that one out from under me I kid, I kid. To me, how bankers marks factor into a coin is all about how they affect its eye appeal. I have a denarius of Antony whose banker's marks I find do not detract too much(at least for me) as they do not interfere with the devices. They were enough, however, to allow me to score it at a significant discount because it had sat in a dealer's inventory for a while and he was ready to move it: On the other hand, most people would agree that the banker's marks on this coin do detract a decent bit, and I agree. I picked it up because it was a cheap and easy way to get an example of a scarcer variety(no scorpion under quadriga) and also gave me a good example of what a coin could look like after many years of circulation. Because of my collecting goals, I have a feeling that picking up coins like this will be necessary from time to time to collect as many varieties as possible: Honestly, as far as your coin goes, I think it's a very nice example for the price and probably only possible because of the banker's marks, because these types are rarely well struck and many have either metal issues or are very worn.
Mostly I do not find banker's marks detracting. And most times I find they add interest. Here is mine like the OP
In general, I prefer coins without bankers' marks and when they have them, I'd like them to be in the fields. It's all about eye appeal though, and sometimes they don't detract much even when on a device. Often the coins sell for less when there are such marks. I'll happily accept the bankers' marks on this denarius-- it made the price more reasonable and the coin is otherwise very nice for the type. Roman Imperatorial, moneyer L. Plautius Plancus 47 BCE AR Denarius, 3.79 gm Obv: L. PLAVTIVS; facing mask of Medusa, serpents at either side of face; banker's mark on cheek Rev: PLANCVS; Aurora flying right and conducting the four horses of the sun. Banker's mark in left field. Ref: Plautia 15b Sear 429, Cr453/1b; Syd 959a. formerly slabbed by NGC
Nice coin. The banker's marks do not bother me. Here is my example. Here is another with banker's marks
Sorry about that (not really ). It was my only win from the last CNG. I like your Antony a lot. Here's the reverse in focus. The more I get into ancients, the more I appreciate the acceptance of imperfection.
I don't own a coin with a banker's mark but I can't issue a blanket statement that they're ok or not - like @TIF said, it's all about eye appeal. If I saw a coin that I wanted that had one that, to me, didn't detract from the coin I would go for it.
I agree fully with r_s and TIF but insist there are two kinds of 'detract'. I do not find a coin with marks less appealing unless they are placed in a way to detract from the coin BUT they certainly detract from the price I will pay simply because the market for coins with marks is lower than for 'perfect' coins. In the case of the OP coin, I would discount it considerably for the nose but very little for the cheek. Banker's marks are part of the numismatic history of the coin as are adjustment scoops, flan flattening file marks and anything else done to the coin as part of the production process or when the coin was current. Damage from a shovel digging up a coin is many times more serious. Countermarks are another matter altogether. In some cases they add to the desirability of a coin to me (not to everyone in the market, for certain). A good strike of a good c/m placed in a way that it does not destroy something important on the other side can make a coin much more desirable. The same mark poorly placed and damaging the reverse is equally a problem. Test cuts are bad. Well placed test cuts are not as bad. In other words, every coin is different. Few people pay more for coins with these situations so I suggest you don't either lest reselling the coin will require finding someone exactly like you. Some coins with these problems are easier to forgive than others. Some issues are hard to find without a mark so you have to decide just how badly you hate the 'problem' as opposed to having no coin. Each of the c/m's below added o the appeal to me and made me want the coin enough to pay more. You may not agree. Pergamon AE with c/m owl in the belly of the snake and well placed flattening on the obverse. Enough marks on one coin can reverse the detraction and make it more interesting as on the Persian siglos. Both coins below were off center enough that the c/m added balance and interest. In both cases the flat spot on the other side fell in an acceptable place. The same marks poorly placed could reduce the value of the coin by 75%. Aspendos Datames (same mark but not as good a strike) I'm publicizing my page on exactly that: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/wabisabi.html
Personally, I really like bankers marks, as long as they do not destroy the coin. To me, they are PROOF of the transaction chain: they PROVE that the coin was acceptable to the banker / receiver that they were acceptable. It is part of the TRUST in transactions. Otherwise, I am sure the coin would have been destroyed, and maybe the transactor destroyed ALSO! I seem to have noticed 'S' and 'O' marks a lot through my RR's. Honestly, I almost do NOT see them when I am looking at a coin. Subliminally, I see them as part of what and why the coin is... part of the Human experience in trade and transactions... I do have a cool 'B' on a Anthony... Marcus Antony AR Denarius Legio X - 'O', 'B' and a curious 'a'-'delta' ? bankers marks Ptolemy I Soter, AR Tet, various bankers marks. India Matsya AR Vimsatika 650-600 BC; bankers marks on reverse Attica - Athena-Owl AR Tet... slam dancin' on those bankers marks! LOL. I was told by others that you would NEVER see a bankers mark on Athena, as it would "insult the Goddess, and you do NOT want to upset her." RR Satrienus 77 BCE AR Denarius Mars She Wolf Sear 319 Craw 388-1 India Mauryan or Sanga - bankers marks rev.
Modest, discreetly placed bankers' marks needn't even detract much from the price. I don't think for instance that the mark above the ship on this coin will really affect the price at auction, if and when I sell it: My absolute favorite Eid Mar, pictured on the cover of the Benz Collection Republican catalogue and now in the MFA in Boston, has a quite noticeable mark in Brutus' hair.
is that a bankers mark on that reverse of that mauryan coin @Alegandron ? i thought that was just another punch? they usually don't bother me either. as DS mention, this does bother me.... it's not the best coin anyway, but it has a "fresh" gouge there on the upper part above the bust where you can see newly exposed metal. from a shovel? ancient graffiti doesn't bug me, but this gets under my skin a tad.
I understand that the punch marks on the FRONT were of the issuing Government, and that area could NEVER be touched. However, the blank or nearly blank reverse was for bankers marks, etc.
Don't have any coins with chop, countermark, or banker's marks. But as others have said, its all about the appeal. The OP's coin looks fine, the mark on the nose doesn't detract the appeal, at least for me. I actually don't mind if its on an area that changes the appearance of the portrait but I do have a bit of an eccentric taste.
Series 6B coins have one mark on the reverse from the mint. I believe this is GH 575 but the overse could be more clear to my inexpert eyes. I wish you had shown the reverse. Some reverses are cute and all deserve to be posted.
Agree with your assessment. Otherwise, your coin is better struck and centered than most of these. Mine is more typical and also has a number of bankers' marks. Like others have said, if not totally marring the devices, I don't let the marks bother me, though I do look forward to getting it cheaper than if it came without the marks. Below is an example of such a coin for me:
As others have said, I don't mind provided it doesn't interfere with the devices. I did purchase a coin once because of the counter marks. It was a Persian Siglos which usually have counter marks, but these ones were unobstructive and added to the mystique of the coin. Persian Empire Darius I to Xerxes II, r. 485-420 B.C. Sardes Mint, AR Siglos, 15.87mm x 5.6 grams Obv.: Persian king or hero, wearing kidaris and kandys, quiver over shoulder, in kneeling-running stance right, holding spear and bow. 1 counterstamp at position 2, Hill 35 Rev.: Incuse punch. Three counterstamps: position 3, Hill type 89; position 10, Hill type 42; position 12, Hill type 58 (perhaps Cypriate or Lycian Letter)
That particular issue comes with bankers marks more often than not. They were heavily counterfeited at the time and it is not surprising that bankers and merchants would test them frequently.
