Tejas

Very cool. Could this be a mule or an unofficial mint product?

True, it is an assumption. I don't have it in writing from HJB that they use the Dutch auction method because it is advantageous for them, but I think this is a good assumption to make. If you offer a common coin, like a Victorinus Antoninian at 3 to 5 times average market value, you have: 1. an outside chance that some inexperienced collector jumps on it (I think this is called fishing for rookies) and 2. a higher anchor price. I.e. your unrealistically high starting price serves as a value anchor and falsely signals that you made a bargain if you by the coin at double the average market value. Auctions are all about psychology. In the Dutch method the buyer has a 100% chance of getting the item only if he pays several times the average market value. At an English floor auction the buyer has a 100% chance of getting the item if he bids one increment above the runner up. (Online auctions have a time element, which complicates matters). Of course, it can happen that the Dutch auction method puts off many buyers, so that good bargains can be had in from unsold lots. My assumption would be that sought after high quality coins are sold above average market value, while common and lower quality lots are sold at or even below average market value.

I think another reason why nobody is following this Dutch auction mechanism is that it is difficult to implement. All online auction platforms use the standard English method, so even if somebody wanted to adopt this odd (and as I think frustrating) method they would have to have their own platform.

Here is another coin from Trier. This is a common coin, but I like this one in particular for its very attractive portrait of Constantine:

The explanations to the coin hoard of Meckel is particularly interesting. Now I know that a follis would have been the daily salary of a donkey driver, a labourer or bought me 25 eggs or 1/2 a liter of honey. 80 of them would have bought me a cow and 160 a military cloak. For 250 folles I could have hired a lawyer for a pladoyer.

Great photos, thank for sharing them. I'm now wildly determined to visit Trier soon. Here is an Argenteus from Trier in the name of Constantine I. These coins are of poor silver and usually in poor quality. This coin is well above average. Obv: IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG. Rev: VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP / PTR. On the shield: VOT/ PR RIC 208a.

Yes, that is what I meant. It puts the auction house at an advantage and the buyer at a disadvantage. This is why HJB uses it and this is also why others don't use it, which is why I said it is problematic.

Because Dutch auctions are less appropriate for the sale of coins and the like. The Dutch auction method is used for selling multiple lots of identical items, where prices drop until the cut-off price at which all lots are allocated. Hence, Dutch auctions are used to sell financial products like Treasury Bills and commercial paper. The traditional (or English) auction method, which all other auction houses is more appropriate for the sale of single items. A Dutch auction that is used for selling single items like coins puts the buyers at a clear disadvantage, as there is no time to react if somebody makes a bid.

Just to add another argument: If you allow for some minor tooling it will be difficult to draw a line between what is and what isn't acceptable. Once people accept some tooling it is a slippery slope. Therefore, tooling should in my view be banned and treated as a form of forgery. PS I am aware that it is always a slippery slope. If tooling is banned, what about cleaning, repatination and smoothing? Personally, I think expert cleaning is fine, repatination is fine and some smoothing can be acceptable if it does not alter the design of the coin. But I guess that is a whole new debate.

Even if this is a Buy or Bid sale (Dutch Auction), I find this method problematic. Starting with an unrealistically high price to tempt people to overpay is in my view not a serious approach to coin trading. It reminds me of some Ebay sellers like "high-rating-low-price", who offer coins at insanely high prices, on which they offer huge discounts to prices, which are still several times the market value, to tempt less experienced collectors to overspend on coins.

I think that is the point exactly. A coin cannot be restored in the way a painting can. A professional restorer of paintings will always do all his restorations in a way that they are reversable, so that the painting can, if necessary, be seen as it has come down to us. The reengraving of coins is of course irreversable. In addition, paintings are unique. The professional restoration of a painting aims to reveal what the artist originally intended for us to see. Coins are usually not unique and we know what was intended from higher quality specimens. I am categorically against tooling of any kind. It amounts to the destruction of ancient artefacts and may often involve the intention to defraud unsuspecting collectors.

Here are from my collection ... 1. Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus Herculius, 286 - 305, 307-308 Obv.: IMP CMA MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Rev.: CONCORDIA MILITVM Mint: Alexandria (ALE) Delta Measurements: 2.38g, 20mm 2. Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus, as Caesar, 293 - 305 Obv.: GAL VAL MAXIMIANVS NOB CAES Rev.: CONCORDIA MILITVM Mint: Alexandria (ALE), Gamma 3. Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus, as Augustus, 305 - 311 Obv.: IMP C MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Rev.: CONCORDIA MILITVM In field: delta In exergue: ALE Mint: Alexandria, 4th officina Date: 305-306 Weight: 3.24g

Well, since I got this one wrong … I corrected a few of their attributions of Ostrogothic coins. The did reply about 6 months later and changed the description accordingly.

Yes, you are right. I misread the legend.

Great coin. I wish it was mine (as so often :-)) The British Museum also lists a Constantine radiate fraction, but in reality it is a common Constantius. (I have notified them about the mistake). https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1981-0413-12

I think that post-reform radiate fractions are one of the least popular coin series among collectors.of ancient coins. This makes it sometimes possible to find rather rare coins at low prices. Below are two radiate fractions of Severus II from my collection. The first was minted for Caesar Severus and the second for Augustus Severus. The first was minted in May to July 306 The first was minted in the second half of 306.

Wow, that is a very nice group.

Yes, that is true of course. Still, I somehow have missed those VOTA nummus fractions. They seem to be pretty rare. Warren (Valentinian), who is a member of this forum, has this web page on radiate fractions, which is my standard reference: RFtable (augustuscoins.com)

Interestingly, from the BM website I learned that the VOTA fractions were also minted at Trier, even for Constantine I.

I get the impression that the OP coin is neither a mule nor an unofficial mint product. Here is a coin from the BM collection https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-3266 I think Rome minted VOT XX for Constantius as caesar and used the shortened obverse legend.

That is interesting, but RIC VI Rome 87a, 88a and 89a all have Constantius I as Caesar with VOT XX reverse. 88a and 88b have the same obverse legend, i.e CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES and CONSTANTIVS NOB C. Do you think that these are all mules or unofficial mint products? This coin here from the BM collection certainly does not look like an unofficial mint product. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-3267

The third mint, which produced this reverse type was Carthage. I also have an exemplar in my collection: Obv.: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOBC Rev.: VOT X FK (Felix Karthago) Mint: Carthage Date: RIC dates the issue to AD 303, but a date closer to AD 296 maybe more appropriate. RIC VI 35a.

I have the answer. The second coin is from Ticinum. Here the T is a mint mark. Indeed, according to OCRE Rome did not use T as officina, but used Gamma instead. Online Coins of the Roman Empire: Browse Collection (numismatics.org) Also, on the first coin the letter is probably not a T, but a reverse Gamma. This coin below from the OCRE is very similar (in fact perhaps die-identical) to my coin above: Note the reverse Gamma and the XX, which are excuted more like ++.

Super helpful, many thanks. So it is Rome, third officina. Would this also apply to this coin?

I was wondering if anybody could tell me which mint the coin below is from? The coin is a so called radiate fraction or post-reform antoninianus, or neo or pseudo antoninianus of Constantius Chlorus. I bought the coin very cheaply on Ebay. I don't have it yet. Obv.: FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOBC Rev.: VOT X X T I'm not entirely sure if I read the T correctly. If it is T, I suppose the mint is Ticinum, but does that match with the VOT XX?