Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Worn coin vs. coin struck from worn dies -- how to tell the difference?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 4500977, member: 110350"]The other day, I noticed these photos of a Gallienus zoo coin -- the kind with a doe looking backwards -- recently sold on Facebook, which the seller described as "one of the finest Gallienus 'zoo' coins I have ever seen. As struck with a slight weakness at 4 o’clock off of extremely sharp dies with almost complete silvering."</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1116223[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1116224[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I commented that I didn't wish to be negative, or interfere with the coin's sale. But now that he had sold the coin, I wanted to say that although the obverse portrait is clearly very nice, I didn't understand how the seller could characterize the coin as "[a]s struck," given that the neck of the doe on the coin appears to be almost entirely worn away, as well as part of its ears, along with much of the reverse legend. The seller responded that I was confusing strike with condition, and that this coin "was struck off of new obverse dies with virtually no wear and a worn reverse die, still with virtually no wear." So I asked "How can you tell that it was the reverse die that was worn, as opposed to the coin itself?" And the seller said, "wear shows differently than a weak strike or worn die even with light magnification."</p><p><br /></p><p>But he didn't explain how it shows differently, and how one can tell the difference. Can anyone here explain how one can tell that the pictured reverse was struck from a worn reverse die, but that the coin itself shows no wear, and, therefore, can fairly be characterized as "as struck"? It really makes no practical difference to me, because I wouldn't buy a zoo coin with a reverse that looked like that regardless of the reason for its appearance. After all, in my opinion the main reason to collect the Gallienus zoo coins in the first place is the animals on the reverse, and there are plenty available at relatively inexpensive prices that depict complete animals. But I'm still curious about how to determine the difference the seller described to me.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 4500977, member: 110350"]The other day, I noticed these photos of a Gallienus zoo coin -- the kind with a doe looking backwards -- recently sold on Facebook, which the seller described as "one of the finest Gallienus 'zoo' coins I have ever seen. As struck with a slight weakness at 4 o’clock off of extremely sharp dies with almost complete silvering." [ATTACH=full]1116223[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1116224[/ATTACH] I commented that I didn't wish to be negative, or interfere with the coin's sale. But now that he had sold the coin, I wanted to say that although the obverse portrait is clearly very nice, I didn't understand how the seller could characterize the coin as "[a]s struck," given that the neck of the doe on the coin appears to be almost entirely worn away, as well as part of its ears, along with much of the reverse legend. The seller responded that I was confusing strike with condition, and that this coin "was struck off of new obverse dies with virtually no wear and a worn reverse die, still with virtually no wear." So I asked "How can you tell that it was the reverse die that was worn, as opposed to the coin itself?" And the seller said, "wear shows differently than a weak strike or worn die even with light magnification." But he didn't explain how it shows differently, and how one can tell the difference. Can anyone here explain how one can tell that the pictured reverse was struck from a worn reverse die, but that the coin itself shows no wear, and, therefore, can fairly be characterized as "as struck"? It really makes no practical difference to me, because I wouldn't buy a zoo coin with a reverse that looked like that regardless of the reason for its appearance. After all, in my opinion the main reason to collect the Gallienus zoo coins in the first place is the animals on the reverse, and there are plenty available at relatively inexpensive prices that depict complete animals. But I'm still curious about how to determine the difference the seller described to me.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Worn coin vs. coin struck from worn dies -- how to tell the difference?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...