Steppenfool

19 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I have a hypothetical question for those of you who say that provenance/pedigree in terms of a history of previous ownership is meaningless and valueless to you. It may be an unlikely hypothetical, but certainly no more so than at least one hypothetical suggested above. Let's assume you have the opportunity to buy either of two available specimens of whatever your favorite, most desirable type of ancient coin may be. Let's also assume that they're of equal quality (so far as that's possible) in terms of visual appeal and condition. But one specimen has zero history of previous ownership, and for all you know could have been dug up somewhere six months ago and illegally imported, or could be a clever fake. The other has a pedigree more than a century old, with indisputable photographic proof of previous ownership by a succession of several famous numismatists, all of them experts in the specific field to which the type belongs, and with no possible doubt regarding the legality of the sale.  According to your pronouncements, you wouldn't pay one single dollar, pound, or euro extra for the second coin than for the first. 

I don't believe it for one moment. I really have no doubt that all of you would pay an additional unit of currency, and probably considerably more than one. Because you would have to be remarkably unintelligent not to do so, and none of you seems unintelligent to me. And if you'd pay one more unit, then "valueless" is out the window, and now we're just haggling over the price. As in the famous joke some of my male friends used to enjoy telling.

I think an important distinction that might be important here is between provenance in and of itself, and what provenance is capable of providing. I would pay extra for guarantees of authenticity and legality as I already do by shopping at established dealers. If provenance has the accidental property of providing proof of authenticity or legality, then I suppose I would pay extra for it. However, I would not pay extra for provenance because I find provenance interesting, if it did not possess these other accidental attributes. The extra security provided by provenance would also be quite low down on my ranked list of criteria if I was already shopping somewhere reputable. If the coin without provenance was even minutely better in some way, I would opt for that one.  Unless, that is, the question entails that I can buy the coin with provenance on the cheap to turn a profit selling it back to someone who is interested in that kind of thing, but I don't think that is the spirit of the hypothetical.

In addition, there are plenty of provenances that do not provide any additional service, I'd argue the vast majority don't, and simply indicate that the coin has been sold at another auction within the last decade. You often hear of high quality fakes passing through the hands of a few auction houses, and we've already this year been exposed to the fakery that goes on with much provenance anyway. So I think that even the accidental attributes that provenance provides are often phantoms too.

With that said, my post about £0 was made with the caveat that my most expensive coin was £170. Since you have shared your purchases of gold solidi worth an order of magnitude more, it makes sense that our opinions differ. I imagine for lower budget coins, your opinion is probably closer to mine, and if I'm in a position one day to buy more expensive coins, I imagine my opinion will move closer to yours.

The only provenance I remotely care about is find spot and find context, as this may add to the historical insight, but unless there is a certificate or some such proving it then I wouldn't value that either as it's too easy to invent (then again, so would the paperwork, probably). I see the Rauceby Hoard everywhere now, I have no idea if the coins come with proof of coming from this hoard.

This ultimately means I don't have any coins with interesting provenance, as it's mostly worth £0 to me, so I wouldn't pay even a modest increase in price because of it.

This is of course contingent on me only buying £<200 coins. If I had coins worth multiple thousands, which comes with it potential legal issues and an increase in the quality of fakes, then provenance becomes a safety net worth paying for, but not for anything to do with the coin itself.

I suppose I am #9 on the list @Ed Snible provided.

I've started a little multiple choice quiz section on my youtube channel. The questions will all be based on Imperial Rome for the time being. Give it a bash if you enjoy testing your knowledge. Once you answer, an explanation, resource or quotation will appear to explain which answer is correct

https://www.youtube.com/@iotademia/community

9 hours ago, JayAg47 said:

Does anyone know what 'choice' mean in numismatic or collectibles in general? after years in this hobby I still don't know. 

I don't know for sure, but my interpretation was that if you lined up many examples of that coin in that grade, the "choice" example would be the one you'd choose.

Essentially I think it means that it's the very highest tier of that grade. So an Extremely Fine coin on the cusp of AU but not quite? Or perhaps it has some other special quality like fine style that would make that example your "choice"?

This was the pics I was working with when purchasing... Not easy. Had to knock a significant amount off the sellers asking price via the offer function due to how uncertain I was. The seller was nice enough to take other pics when I asked they were still in the plastic holder so can only be so good.

Quote

Since Maximus dies at the end of “Gladiator,” the sequel is focused Lucilla’s son Lucius, played by Academy Award nominee Mescal.

Oh goodness, they aren't even pretending its historical. 😂

Lucius Verus' son (who doesn't die young in this universe) is going to be the one who assasinates Caracalla while he's taking a piss isn't he? He's going to go a big spiel about how he wont allow another Commodus ruin the Empire and then he's going to stick the knife in Caracalla before going down heroically in a hail of arrows while a moribund instrumental score plays in the background.

Apparently Pedro Pascal is going to be in it, I think he is rugged enough to transform into Caracalla while still being Hollywood attractive. Or maybe he's our Septimius Severus?

One final shot of how it now appears iliterally in (an edited out) hand! Very pleased! I do think the dirt was nicely masking some of the crummy silver undeneath though, especially in the obverse fields. Maybe should have strategically left some in place to give the portrait more pop? Maybe some true toning will occur over time and improve the look of the poor silver.

A gentle wooden toothpick to the hard black central deposits and some more cotton buds later. Photos in the same conditions as reply 2 and then the same conditions as the opening post. I think this as far as I will take the cleaning. The rest of the deposits/toning are quite nice and don't detract much from the coin in my opinion. I don't plan on using any chemical treatments as the tone has a nice depth to it in hand. I notice that some of the dirt actually made it look more striking in previous pictures, but it is much nicer in hand now.

10 minutes ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Who gets to play Didius Julianus?

Steve Coogan

Oh yes, I did forget to touch on the actual production. I am prepared to be extremely disappointed, as I am with almost any historical drama except HBO's Rome.

That's a bit silly. I would prefer if they reflected Caracalla's actual ethnicity somehow, I think it is a very important part of the Severan dynasty's story. Irrespective of the incorrect ethnicity, he doesn't look remotely angry enough anyway. Furthermore, I don't know how easily they will recreate Caracalla's iconic ringlet hairstyle if the actor doesn't possess it naturally. However as I have stated previously regarding the other controversy, as long as they don't go bandying around incorrect ethnicities as historical fact, I don't mind too much.

I think Denzel would make a good Septimius, he's got the gravitas for it. I think that's who he'll play, or possibly Macrinus, who was supposedly of Berber origin.

And finally some pictures that reflect its appearance in hand: I really like it, it has a lot of character and the headdress is very clear for a budget example 😀

So I took another set of pictures which really highlights what I'm talking about (and makes the coin look horrific too) 😂 The stuff looks sort of like blue-tac in texture and I reckon it might be able to be picked off?

I bought a budget Commodus lionskin head-dress from eBay and took a gamble on some unclear pictures. My low budget phone hasn't captured the detail much better to be fair, but there's a sort of dark blue/grey substance under Commodus' ear and to the right of his forehead. And also amongst the HER/ROM and club of the reverse. Maybe it is toning of some sort? There's some horn silver on the coin as well but I think this might be something different?

Weight is 2.1g which I figure is normal for this often poor quality issue accompanied with some degradation.

8 hours ago, CPK said:

This is what ought to be done. I'm opposed to the idea of banning replicas outright - they are interesting and sometimes it's fun to be able to own a really good replica of a rare and valuable coin. But in all cases it should be marked somewhere - doesn't have to be obtrusive - that it's a replica.

The edge, I think, would be too easy to remove. How about just a small "COPY" or even just "C" or "R" for "replica", well-stamped on the surface where it least detracts from the overall aesthetic?

This is a nice little replica that I enjoy owning, which obviously would fool nobody. It's got a "COPY" stamp, cleverly placed on the obverse where it is less obvious. You could make the stamp a lot smaller than this, too.

 

 

Not to dunk on your coin, but to me, that COPY is really quite distracting and takes away from the aesthetic appeal. Especially because it seems to follow the legend. Maybe if they struck the "COPY" in lettering that matched the coins lettering style it would look less jarring. I like the idea of just a C, they can put it in the fields where the officina of certain LRBs.

Not my coin:

Also it's Sol Invictus on the reverse!

Is there any way a dealer could mark fake coins like these so it's clear their fake but so they don't hurt the aesthetic appeal? And also so that it cannot be removed or removing it is more hassle than it's worth. This seems to the the only solution if houses are moving towards the ethically dubious practice of openly selling reproductions. Maybe a certain bankers mark/test cut that is consistent across fakes?

The WRL is really ugly on the Westair ones. Perhaps something can be done with the edge or something?

Rather than shamelessly self promote in a separate thread. I'll do it here. I've started a Youtube channel that aims to engage in more in depth analysis of specific historical topics. I try not to let unevidenced narratives take over and instead attempt to present the primary sources directly to the viewer, justify anything I say, and try to guide the viewer to somewhat make up their own mind. This video is on the evidence before 312 for Constantius I's personal religion and therefore contains discussion of Numismatics. In a few days, I will be finished  the sequel that explores the Christian revision of Constantius' reign.

I'm still working on the ins and outs of video production etc. and I hope to improve as I go!

I really enjoy the busts that show hands/chests/shoulders etc. that are actually in proportion. My impression is that the engravers often exaggerated the head and then squeezed in the rest the best they could. Yours is a lovely example of a well proportioned depiction! @Nerosmyfavorite68

12 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

So here is where I have become confused.  Both Maximianus and Galerius used the name Maximianus.   Is this not Galerius?   I have a recollection that this has been discussed before but an admittedly cursory search for the discussion did not unveil it.  Let me add that I am not looking to contradict the dealer, nor to return the coin, which I really like.  I would just like to have a better understanding of what I have.  I know many of you here have much more experience and knowledge in this area, which I invite you to share.

 

Yes there are two clues. The GAL VAL in the obverse legend for Galerius Valerius, and the NOB CAES also in the obverse legend. Maximian was never Caesar he was immediately co-Augustus, so it can't be him!

1 hour ago, Deinomenid said:

Here's one that doesn't deserve its own thread.  I wish auction houses would skip auction 30 if they insist on  using Roman numerals. I've been trying to  find some  background on a strange  Rindge coin  I  have that was sold at Malter XXX. 

I can't tell you the stuff I have to wade through that's - let's say - not coin-related. As I  live near a town  called Malta it's even worse.

 

Maybe you already know this but if you put your search into an engine in quotation marks i.e."Malter XXX" it'll search for the combined terms rather than each one individually. I think it's also less likely to "correct" you and change your entries this way as well.

12 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Shakespeare is an interesting case. Many of his plays were historical, so it might be odd to have known people like Henry V portrayed as a different race. Othello was moorish, and often portrayed by black actors, although he may or may not have come from Africa. On top of all that, the original Shakespeare casts were all men, so if Antony and Cleopatra is put on at the Globe today it will go well beyond tradition simply by having a female Cleopatra.

I think it matters as well the intent behind the production. Even though Shakespeare's Julius Caesar uses Ancient Roman characters, the point of the show isn't to educate about history. Shakespeare is trying to convey something else utilising this setting as a springboard. The race/appearance/hairstyle/whatever of the actors is irrelevant to what Shakespeare is doing, so Caesar can be Asian, Marc-Antony Finnish and Brutus Black, it greatly doesn't matter. However the case is different when you indicate that your production aims to tell people how things actually were. Then you have to try to be more careful with the appearance of the cast as much as you do accurate costumes, setting etc. 

However I imagine there are situations where you can't achieve accuracy with regards to casting etc due to the options you have available, or even because you wish to make a socio-political point about diversity in the industry if that's what you think is noble. In such an instance it could be argued it is reasonable to cast someone who looked different from the actual historical person, however you wouldn't draw attention to this deviation from fact like it's grounded in historical reality as Netflix appears to have done.

I did recently watch the trailer again and it appears that this historical falsehood is not the only one Netflix are perpetuating. It states "Julius Caesar wants to be King to Cleopatra's Queen.", "Cleopatra was trying to save the country that she loved from destruction." and in big bold text "the last ruling Pharoh of Egypt". Almost every statement in the trailer is dubious.

So in summary, I think the issue is the liberal use of "documentary" and the way they seem to have allowed random people to talk nonsense in interview clips throughout it. Although like I said above, probably done on purpose to wind people up.

I agree that nobody should care much about the cast used to create a piece of art.

However, this series purports to be a documentary, with someone in the trailer stating " My grandmother used to say to me: I don't care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was Black." and the executive producer Jada Plinkett Smith (Will Smith's scandalised wife) claiming that she wanted to tell the story of Black Queens. I think this is where the (level-headed) concern is coming from, although it will of course also cause outrage from more unsavoury types uninterested in historical accuracy.

I actually think the controversy is all manufactured by design anyway. I see people discussing this all over the internet, it's a marketer's dream. Applying modern racial categories to history is nothing short of a grift in the first instance, but even if Netflix were genuinely wishing to highlight actual Black history, there was the Nubian dynasty of Pharohs among a plethora of other significant figures and empires in world history to choose from.