What is “Boscoreale toning” on a Roman aureus?

No worries even if you did outbid me and win I would be happy for you.

I really don’t mind being outbid at all.

The way I see it coins selling for higher prices is good for the hobby in general.

However I do have my eye on an MS victoriatus as well so I hope I get one or the other. xD

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nothing to do with Boscoreale toning, but does anyone know why it is that Nero's aurei in general seem to be less expensive than any other emperor's? They're the only ones that can still sometimes be bought for three or four thousand dollars. Do more of them survive?

 

I always found that odd as well.

Especially since his denarii seem to be so much less common. Definitely not anywhere near the most common like the aureii are.

It’s particularly interesting that it’s Nero’s specifically and not any other Emperor.

The Romans had a practice called “damnatio memoriae” which means “codemnation of memory” where someone who was particularly hated would have all public mention of that person erased or destroyed.

According to Cassius Dio (Senator, historian and once even a Consul) one of the reasons Caligula’s denarii are so rare is because he was subjected to damnatio memoriae after he died and most of his denarii were melted down.

I always imagined Nero’s coins would be in a similar situation due to the people & Senate hating him even more than Caligula.

Yet while his denarii are indeed uncommon his aureii are very common (as far as aureii go even though all aureii are pretty rare in general hence the high price tags).

 

Regarding the comparatively common occurrence of Nero aureus, a Coin World article gives a possible reason: Nero's monetary reform.

https://www.coinworld.com/news/prec...-melting-sold-two-thousand-three-hundred.html

 

Running some quick CoinArchives searches for [Emperor name][aureus] which produces a lot of noise but at least give a proportional view:

Augustus: (not an easy emperor to search as most emperors include the Augustus title)
Tiberius: 2212
Caligula: 405
Claudius: 1901
Nero: 3262
Galba: 563
Otho: 307
Vitellius: 410
Vespasian: 3222
Titus: 1615
Domitian: 1484

This fits with an anecdotal feeling of how often the aurei of Nero/Vespasian are available. Nero likely receives a price bump due to name recognition, otherwise his aurei would be even less expensive.

 

I've always had the expectation that my collection would eventually include examples of the Late Republic players, obscure usurpers, and short term emperors, however, I've not yet been willing to pull the trigger on most of these things due to general discomfort with the price points. I'm still fairly early in my collection with a lot of easier (and cheaper) holes to fill, so that's what I tend to focus on.

However, if my collection is ever to be complete, then I'm gonna have to fill those bigger holes at some point, and this auction has a large selection of that type of thing. I'm considering blowing up the bank account and just going for some of them, but, my more frugal side will probably (maybe, hopefully) win out in the end! Oh, if only I had a money tree

I always tend to assume nefarious motives for actions taken by things like auction houses . With a coin like this, they are probably comfortable assuming that the story, toning, history, etc will carry the desired price without their influence, therefore, they intentionally under-estimate the value to give us the impression that auctioneer under-estimation is the tendency. Misleading us in this way will cause overbidding on items that they properly estimate or even over-estimate, which of course is good for them!

It's all about psychological manipulation in pursuit of our money. Of course, I tend to err on the side of cynicism when it comes to these types of things, so take that into account as well .

Edit: I just realized that I somewhat misinterpreted what you were asking. But I still stand by my argument!

 

A couple other potential reasons:

-Nero is the "Beast" described in the Book of Revelation, and the Number of the Beast is his name. This might have extra value to biblical coin collectors, as when someone talks about the Mark of the Beast, they can hold up their Aurius and say, "You mean this!?".

-I'm a bit chunkier than I'd like to be, and I sometimes feel weak-minded for succumbing to the flaws of modern abundance and leisure. But seeing Nero's chunky butt on coins makes me feel better about myself, as this type of thing must be a problem that has plagued humans for at least thousands of years! Don't know about you, but that benefit carries a premium in my book.

 

Underestimation is, in my opinion, an overall good thing. When I look at my bids there are a number where I might have bid double or more what the estimate was but won the coin for a good bit under that. Sometimes there were technical reasons for such things (e.g. issues with the auction site live bidding), other times I think I just got lucky and sometimes I honestly suspect I overestimated a coin's value in my head. Everything else being the same I'd rather place a $550 bid on a lot with a $250 "estimate" than place a $550 bid on a lot with a $500 "estimate" even if the $250 estimate seems laughable.

There's one auction house that, particularly with coins they own(often bought relatively recently at auction), tend to estimate a little high in my opinion and place opening bids right around what I'd consider a reasonable max bid. I have won a few coins from this auction houses inventory at opening bid but I always felt like I might have gotten a better price had they estimated those coins more closely to how they estimate their consignors' coins.

At the end of the day I always bid what I'm actually comfortable paying so it isn't that big of a deal but I much prefer the chance that a coin will hammer lower even if they usually don't. Maybe I'll feel differently about low estimates if I consign my collection, but as a buyer I feel pretty comfortable coming up with my own estimate as far as value and bidding based on whatever that number is, regardless of what number the auction house has decided to call the estimate.

 

Probably the great fire of Rome in July of 64 AD was single most significant cause for the rather large issue of Aureii during the latter part of the reign of Nero the main reason why the precious metal mint was moved from Lugdunum to Rome and the impetus for the massive issue of Ae coins issue at the same time. This can be seen even with the recorded contents of the Boscoreale Hoard. Out of roughly 1000 coins recorded 622 were minted during the reign of Nero. Of these 444 are of the IVPPITER CVSTOS, SALVS and VESTA types. This compares to something like 73 for Vespasian. Many years ago I read that up to sometime during the the nineteenth century the aureii of Nero were considered to be nothing more than bullion. I have no way of verifying that this statement is true.

 

Speaking of aureii being valued as bullion:

http://a-coins.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-brescello-hoard-largest-and-most.html

It's heartbreaking to think about 80,000 republican aurei of 32 total varieties, buried during the civil wars in 38-37 BC being found and melted down in the early 1700's.

If these things had not happened, then even a poor boy like me could probably own a bright, shiny Octavian aureus.

 

And drawing attention to it on an ancient coins discussion board won't help keeping the price down either.