Two Random Denarii, Julius Caesar, Titus

I wanted to post some "good for the grade coins" but was stumped because I really don't know how to traditionally grade coins. I have many which I think are "good for type", but that's not the game we're playing today .

Various practical grading schemes have been jokingly suggested before, something like:

Nope
aboutBing
excellentX6
nearAJ
AJ

I tend to grade mine on this scale, which isn't necessarily linear:

Nope
Wholesome
As good as I can afford or want to spend
Very respectable
Awesome

Since I don't have the ability to say if any of my coins are "good for grade", instead I'll post a couple of low condition coins that I still find very appealing. Something about evenly worn coins makes me want to touch them. And touch them I do

My purse-piece . It's special because I found it locally. While where I live there are many great ancient coins set in jewelry, free range ancients are not often found . I love the even wear and wonder how long this drachm circulated.

EGYPT, Alexandria. Antoninus Pius
year 17, CE 153/4
AE drachm
Obv: [AVTKTAIΛAΔPANTωNINOCCEBEVC]; laureate bust right
Rev: eagle standing facing, head left (wreath in beak?); L IZ
Ref: Emmett 1496.17; Dattari 3094

And here's another evenly worn "touch me" coin recently purchased. I'm tempting fate by showing it because it has not arrived although it's on track to be here in a week or so. Edited seller's images.

Syria, Laodicea. Septimius Severus
CE 193-211
Æ, 31 mm 18.8 gm
Obv: jugate draped busts right of Septimius Severus, radiate and cuirassed and Julia Domna, set on crescent; countermarks: 1) C(AΓ) within rectangular incuse; 2) COL within rectangular incuse
Rev: Marsyas standing left, right hand raised, holding wineskin over his left shoulder
Ref: SNG Righetti 2114; Howgego 581 and 586

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nearly perfect

 

About Bing???????????? (now that's funny)

 

LOL, WOW! Love that... Eyes to Heaven......orrrrr, NOT.

Nice DDouble SStrike... great capture!

 

Q. Cornificius. Good for the grade... and one of the very few types rare enough that I would include it in my collection in pretty much ANY grade:

 

@Sallent, your toned Septimius is a cast.

Barry Murphy

 

GREAT THREAD! Love seeing circulated coinage! Just wreaks with what stories could be told with the transactions these coins have experienced! Lovit!

 

Nice coins Volodya. Did you have the Cornificius when I saw your collection or is that new?

Barry Murphy

 

Always loved that coin!

 

Some of my ancients that saw alot in their life before they "hit dirt".


L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (90 B.C.)
AR Denarius
O: Laureate Head of Apollo right; symbol behind.
R: L PISO FRVGI, horseman, holding palm frond and reins, on horse galloping right; symbol below.
Rome Mint
3.33g
19mm
Crawford 340/1


P. Licinia Nerva (113-112 B.C.)
AR Denarius
O: Helmeted bust of Roma left, holding shield and spear over shoulder; crescent above, mark of value to left.
R: Three citizens voting on comitium: one voter receives ballot from attendant below, another voter places ballot in cista; [P] on tablet above bar.
Rome Mint
17mm
3.3g
Crawford 292/1, Sydenham 548; Licinia 7


Mn. Cordius Rufus. (46 B.C.)
AR Denarius
O: RVFVS S.C., Diademed head of Venus right, two locks of hair falling down neck.
R: MN. CORDIVS, Cupid riding dolphin right.
Rome Mint
3.7g
18mm
Crawford 463/3; Sydenham 977

 

I pulled it out of a hoard of worn, partly-cleaned RR denarii we had at HJB in 2002. I'm pretty sure you saw my collection after that, but I confess the years sort of blend together as I age...

 

I think for the grade, this is a wonderful coin. Nicely centred with a fine portrait.


Titus
AR Denarius
Rome mint, 79 AD
RIC 35 (R), BMC 11, RSC 268a
Obv: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M; Head of Titus, Laureate, bearded, l.
Rev: TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII P P; Venus stg. r. leaning on column, with helmet and spear
Ex CNG E358, 26 August 2015, lot 323

 

I suppose this is just an opinion but I consider 'good for the grade' to have a rather specific meaning. In general, I do not see it as appropriate to use for higher grades but starting at Fine, there are certain coins that are most certainly more desirable than most that would be graded in a like manner but that simply can not qualify for a higher grade. The Titus above is a perfect example of this since the head detail can't allow VF but that coin is way better than the average Fine.

Orfew's Caesar is as worn as a coin can get and still be identifiable on the reverse but those familiar with the type can name the animal and see legend below not expected on a coin gradable as Poor. The obverse is really bold for a coin that worn and the banker's mark does not destroy the portrait. Most people would have to assign that coin a split grade (VG/Pr?) but someone looking for a Caesar portrait might be quite happy to have a coin with nice smooth surfaces.

Good for the grade coins will have centering that shows legends and surfaces that show little texture (roughness, porosity) which are only compromised by what we call good old honest wear. When you get to a grade of VG or below, you hope that the bad points are mostly on unimportant parts of the coin. I do not care if the back of the portrait blends with the field but I want the nose to separate clearly.

When legends start to disappear we can prefer that the letters that leave are not as important as the ones that stay. Denarii of Otho are often seen worn to VG but a 'good for grade' coin will retain the letters OTHO even if the rest of the legends are gone. Other coins are made special by some dating device. If what makes a coin special is that device, a 'good for grade' coin will be readable there. I'd rather have a 'good for grade' Fine than a so-so VF in many cases or a completely unworn EF that can not be identified to date, ruler or mint without resorting to style or die identification.


Above are three coins from the same die of Septimius Severus that have the relatively scarce obverse legend ending in IICO. The middle one is off center losing the important letters. The one on the right has them weakly; the one on the left shows them clearly. Were the two on the outside to be carried in pocket until they were worn equal to the center one, the right one would lose the IICO while the left one would be a Fine 'good for grade' which I would rather have than the middle coin on the day it was made.

Aegina turtles might be quite worn but 'good for grade' if they have a head, tail and four legs even if worn to Fine while there are EF's missing five of the six appendages. The requirements to be 'good for grade' will obviously differ from type to type and coin to coin but, largely, it means that the coin is better looking than a coin bearing that letter grade needs to be. I don't know if NGC ever grades a coins as VG 5/5, 5/5 but that sounds like a coin I would love to own.

Who has a better definition?

 

This is very nice exposition of the idea - you've certainly summed up many of the things I feel instinctively about "good for the grade."

 

Cool thread additions, TIF

 

@Barry Murphy can you edit your post and put @ in front of Sallent about the Septimius, he may miss your post otherwise.

 

I'm the one that sold that coin to him - I've already PM'd him with a full refund, just haven't gotten a response back. I guess I didn't take a good look at it - it certainly has the soft features and irregular surfaces of a cast. My apologies to Mr. Sallent, and my thanks to @Barry Murphy for pointing it out.

 

For me, this was a "nice to have in any grade" type, so I'm happy I managed to pick up a "nice for the grade" example.


ROMAN REPUBLIC
C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi
AR Denarius
3.72g, 17.6mm
Rome mint, 61 BC
RBW 1481 (same dies); Babelon Calpurnia 29; Sydenham 876; C. Hersh, NC 1976, 439; Crawford 408/1b.
O: Diademed and draped bust of Apollo left, caduceus over shoulder.
R: Horseman, holding reins, on horse galloping right; ↓ above; C PISO LF FRVG below.

 

Were the mint workers really slaves? That's interesting, I always assumed they had to be freedmen and citizens as I didn't think the Romans would trust slaves to handle all that gold and silver.

 

I don't honestly know. It's an idea that we toss around, only because a significant part of the Roman labor force was supplied by slaves. Does anyone know if there's any scholarship on the matter?