Why are people the way that they are.

I don't have a 382/1a - here's a 382/1b - no explanation for why the coin you posted would go so high - although Roma sold a nice one in 2018 for ~1820 (1300 GBP) so it looks like prices are dropping.
C. Naevius Balbus, 79 BC, AR denarius (18 mm, 3.90g, 6 h), Rome
Obv: S · C behind, diademed head of Venus right
Rev: C · NÆ B(AL)B in exergue, Victory driving galloping triga right; above, XVIIII
Ref: Crawford 382/1b; Sydenham 769b; Naevia 6

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yours is the same type as mine, with the control-number on the reverse, as opposed to the obverse control-letter of the sold coin. The other type is indeed somewhat less common than ours, but not so much less common that I believe that it could account for the extremely high price.

 

I'm always late to the party. A page or two back, everyone was showing theirs coin of this type. This is mine. Most people seem to prefer the larger antoniniani of Gordian but the horse makes this denarius popular. Mine was $29 in 2013. I doubt it would sell for more now.


The other common GIII denarii are 'someone standing there' types. They were $30 and $45 suggesting to me that the horse means less than the better grade and reverse strike.

 

Welp, auction results like this make me glad I abandoned ancient coin collecting... at least the non-Chinese areas

 

Now someone’s gonna start telling the dumb money that Chinese coins are a steal right now based off this comment

 

Can't resist posting this example from Heritage today:




And not an isolated example, as we know.

 

I have heard a lot of theories but not this one. However to illustrate what I am thinking I will present this coin which is one I have just received.
Ephesos Ar Tetradrachm 350-340 BC Obv Bee with straight wings Rv. Fore part of stag right head reverted facing palm tree. Kinns Pixodarus Class G Obv 119 15.26 grms 21 mm Okay so what is the big deal? Simple. I started collecting Greek coins in 1987 and this is a type that even from the start I wanted and this coin is the first I have managed to acquire. This is not an uncommon coin, however the series is rather indifferently struck and there are a lot of them that have problems. In fact had I seen this coin in 1987 I probably would not have purchased it. The abdomen on this specimen is a bit smushed and the coin has a tight flan. However I bought it because well I am 70 years old (in about two weeks) and I am starting to think it is either now or never
Which brings me to the current market. There must be a lot of collectors out there like me. They are looking at the coins they are missing to complete their masterpiece and they may be thinking they may not have a lot of time to do so.
PS That Titus denarius with the Capricorn reverse posted by Restitutor at the start of this thread .... One like it was found during the excavations at Pompeii. Because it was minted most likely in September of 79 AD it does challenge the traditional season for the eruption placing the event more likely in the fall. As an illustration of the use of coinage to solve historical controversies I cannot think of one better.

 

And there's another Leu auction coming up this weekend...
Be prepared to be amazed!

We could have a new fun CT game: instead of 'Guess the Cointalker' we could play 'Guess the Most Outrageously Overpriced Coin in This Weekend's Auction'.

 

no no there is no Leu auction this weekend it’s NEXT weekend… next weekend…

 

Romancollector said: ↑
Also, I disagree with the idea that there is a "grade" craze being driven by modern collectors.
A good part of the 'grade craze' is that modern collectors don't understand the grading of ancient coins and think that Magnentius is exceptional.

I do not have an exact match to that Trier Magnentius. Mine is green. Should I have bid over that $810 to get that lovely specimen or just be happy with the six pieces of junk below (two are Decentius) that I paid about the same amount for in total? If I were to send all six to Sev for AMCC sale or to John Anthony for his little Coin Talk sales, would you folks bid the bunch of them up to that level total? Experience suggests not. None of mine are slabbed. Should I send them off with $300+ to correct that? None of mine are for sale so there is no need for that. I don't know what I would do with the money if I had it in hand. The sales I have already consigned may be the last for a while. Is the hobby over for people with limited resources unless they are happy with slugs? I hope not.

 

That is insanity. For comparison, my coin below is the same type and mint (different officina, but that matters only to very few people). It is of high grade and in some aspects might even surpass the Heritage example: it has a larger flan, more complete legends, more detail on the Victories' faces, better style, and natural green patina. On the other hand, the Heritage coin has a tiny bit less wear, but the difference is small in my eyes.

EDIT: Much of what I wanted to say has already been stated by Doug above while I was typing.

I bought mine from a well-respected dealer last year for about $40 shipped. That's roughly 5% of what the Heritage example hammered for before fees and shipping.

Magnentius, Roman Empire, AE2, 352 AD, Trier mint. Obv: DN MAGNENTIVS PF AVG, draped and cuirassed bust of Magnentius r., A behind. Rev: VICTORIAE DD NN AVG ET CAES; two Victories, winged, draped, facing each other, holding between them a wreath inscribed VOT/V/MVLT/X; in exergue, TRS. 22mm, 5.82g. Ref: RIC VIII Treveri 312.

 

I believe it's now been pretty definitively established that the eruption took place in October rather than August, from a newly-discovered charcoal inscription, among other evidence. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...te-change-for-pompeii-eruption-idUSKCN1MQ2CR; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45874858. So the coin you mention would be consistent with that evidence.

 

I believe there are a number of members here, including me, who would be happy to take the money off your hands and spend it wisely!

 

Any time discussion turns to how oddly collectors are behaving today, I find myself returning to this book from Spink AD 1903: Roman Coins, Elementary Manual by Francesco Gnecchi, translated by Alfred Watson Hands

• "We have seen in the recent sale-rooms coins of extreme rarity allowed to be sold for relatively low prices on account of their deficient preservation, whilst common coins artistic in finish, and in good preservation were competed for at hitherto unheard-of prices"
  
• "For a perfect Sestertius of Galba, Vitellius, Antoninus, Pertinax, which would be in the ordinary condition valued at 8, 80, 4, 150 lire, one would have to pay 100, 300, 150, 1000 lire, and a bronze medallion in really mint condition would easily fetch at a sale some thousands of lire whatever its name or valuation...I hope the mention of these luxurious and ruinous prices will not discourage any of my readers; they should rather have judgment enough to behold such a mirage without aspiring to grasp it, at any rate for their consolation I would say that a collection may be made in many ways, and one may have a collection suitable to any purse"
  
• "The first collectors did not lay much stress on the state of preservation of their specimens, to which in the present day, very great, and I might say excessive importance, is attached."
  
• "Among a hundred individuals who begin to collect one can count on ninety at least setting to work on a general collection, and that because nearly all are ignorant of the vastness of the material before them."

To me it seems - not much changed in 118 years...

 

The denarius in question has been conclusively shown by Richard Abdy of the BM to read IMP XIIII not IMP XV as alleged. This places it before September 79, not in the autumn.

https://www.academia.edu/26948608/T..._in_Numismatic_Chronicle_Vol_173_2013_p_79_83

 

Yes! Next, next week...and CNG is the week after that in case anyone's wondering! No need to check!

 

Don't assume that crazy auction prices are driven by bidders with the same sense of value that most of us share. A lesson from recent history:

https://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v17n47a26.html

"When he wanted a certain object, he would simply keep on bidding until it was his. There are stories of items valued at a few thousand pounds that would suddenly be nudging seven figures because the Sheikh and an under-bidder were locked in an act of brinkmanship."

 

Here is the famous charcoal inscription:



The inscription reads: "XVI K Nov," meaning the 16th day before the calends of November, or October 17 in the modern calendar. But it's not listing a year ! According to archeologist, since charcoal is a "fragile and evanescent" material, it is very unlikely it could have been able to survive long. But it did survive until our days, 2000 years after the eruption... It will take more than that to convince me that Pliny the Younger (an actual eye-witness) was wrong...

 

Well it looks like I was wrong in my assertions about the Titus denarius. Good to know. I had thought of actually purchasing one but I already had this coin.
Vespasian Ar Denarius 79 AD Obv, head right laureate Rv. Capricorn facing left. RIC 1058 3.43 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen. I really did not think that I would want two coins with the same reverse type that minted within a short period of time of each other. Also I bought this coin at the ANA in Chicago 2019 so I got to see it in person and I really liked it. I imagine trying to find a Titus denarius with the appropriate reverse in a similar grade would be very difficult. Thank you for solving that dilemma

 

If lack of wear is your only criterion, that coin is exceptional. Lack of wear can bring exceptional prices. If one coin is "slightly" better than another, we cannot assume it will cost only "slightly" more. Here is a part of the PCGS price chart for some common coins:
https://www.pcgs.com/prices/detail/copper-type-coins/-9/most-active

In the lower right we see that MS68 examples can worth very much more than MS67 examples, even though most of us could not reliably tell them apart. So, it is the case than a "slightly" better coin can be worth "very much" more.

Now, returning to first Magnentius coin. It is a very common type and not even a special variety. There are better mints (Amiens) and better varieties (e.g. with a chi-rho above the shield). Also, although the lack of wear gives it a high "grade," much of the legend is crowded or missing (which is a big detraction) and the flan is ragged, which is also a detraction. So, is it really one of the best of its type?

Here are two to think about.


This one has better legends, lovely earthen cover, and a bold chi-rho above the shield. However, it is more worn.



This one has better legends (although far from perfect), a cross-rho above the shield (which is desirable), and is from the Amiens mint (a mint that minted only for him and his brother, Decentius). It has a lovely green patina, which shows chipping at the edges. It has little wear, but the strike of the Heritage coin is deeper.

So, among the three coins, which is "best"? The best one might be worth far more than the others.

Well, if I didn't know the Heritage coin sold for so much money, I would prefer either of the other two. I collect early Christian symbols (and many other things) on coins and these two have good examples. The Amiens mint one is from the mint with interesting historical connections to Magnentius. Both have nice surfaces, if in much different ways. Now that I know the Heritage coin sold for so much money, I still prefer these two. I used them to illustrate early Christian symbols on coins on a website.

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Christian/ChristianTable6.html

The portraits are good and typical. They help tell the story of Magnentius.

Why might one prefer the Heritage coin? Lack of wear. Only lack of wear.

Serious ancient-coin collectors think that there is more to desirability than lack of wear. CoinTalk proves it. Note how many of our threads begin with a historical story that is connected to a coin.

My two coins were bought long ago (for $25 and $23), so their prices are not in 2021 dollars. If those two were less desirable that the Heritage coin I could not say the price multiple was wrong because "slightly" better can cost "much more." Maybe some think the Heritage coin is better. Not me. I think it sold for far more than it should have.