dougsmit

I don't usually post 'not my' coins but I'll make an exception here since this one has not shown up here yet. I traded away this Alexandria tetradrachm from the group attributed to Rome mint rather than Alexandria. I am unclear whether the coins were minted in Rome and shipped to Alexandria or if the dies were shipped and the coins made locally.

Here is a good question: Should one use the same lighting for both sides of the same coin or is it OK to treat each side as an individual making adjustments as work best for that side? I usually say it is OK to make changes BUT, in the case of brockages, I believe it might be better to shoot the same way to preserve the odd look of the brockage. Opinion?

At least yours can be undertype identified.

Standard grading does not apply to this type. To be a good coin, you need a clear head and good gushing blood from the neck. Add to that, the coin needs a clear weapon and head of Perseus on flan. All that can come on a Fine and all can be missing on a mint state. I bought this Amastris for the face on Medusa. It has a lot of faults I choose to overlook as will its next owner.

This is very unusual and a good looking coin but I do not like the lighting on the photo which does not make it clear that the coin is a brockage. The obverse shows a bright edge on the top but the reverse shows it on the bottom. That makes both sides look 'normal'. If lighted in the same way, the dark shadow under the but and behind the head would be light rather than dark. I don't have a Greek Brockage and AE brockages are not all that common. This is 'some coin'. The Claudius (barbarous) below shows the light coming from the top on both sides so the reverse looks incuse in comparison.

The only thing we have in common is Andy Singer who remains my favorite dealer after the passing of Don Zauche. I would love to have a coin like the ones you showed but I most certainly would value them enough that I would show both sides. You might be interested in a recent podcast on YouTube by Aaron Berk where he features a high grade but barely identifiable as overstruck Europa. I wonder if this entire issue was overstruck with some not showing it at all and some real messes with the undertype more clear than the last use. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330092957_Overstriking_at_Gortyna_insights_and_new_perspectives_in_Proceedings_of_the_12th_International_Congress_of_Cretan_Studies_Heraklion_2018 "The next worn coin is a stater of Gortyna." ////// " it was overstruck on a stater of the nearby town of Gortyna."

A like anything from Amiens from this period.

That is a very attractive obverse with what we term 'eye appeal'. The fact is many high grade coins are quite ugly. I always liked coins with contrasting fields but many are a bit artificial having been polished down on the high points and left dark in the fields. I also prefer coins with legends so my example of the same FIDEI LEG TRP COS SC type was doubly appealing even though it is Fine at best. Do I see an eagle on that staff? One of my first contrasty coins was a Commodus sestertius that suffered what I was taught to call 'brick' cleaning (having parallel scratches named for a tendency of archaeologists a few years back who would reveal the ID of a coin by rubbing it on a brick). When coins only are seen to have value to date other finds, such things happen. However, I'm not sure that this is any worse than wholesale zapping of coins stripping them of all their surfaces and eye appeal in short order. Another thing suffered by some sestertii is 'natural' polish from being carried as a pocket piece as was fashionable in the past by gentlemen of culture. This Galba must have spent decades in a pocket sharing space with spending money of the then current variety. Certainly such polished appearance can be achieved in a less natural way but, like 'brick cleaned', I consider 'pocket piece' a term to describe a certain 'look' whether or not it accurately diagnoses the situation. Coin collectors had a language even before it was made numeric with MS 5/5 5/5. When I was a teen collector, such things were picked up talking to the old men who ran coin shops 'one flight up' downtown in larger cities. I wish I remembered any of the names of these men in Indianapolis who introduced ne to ancient coins in the 1960's. All were simply 'Sir' then. I also once collected fourrees (before people started paying more for them than they are worth to me). Of my plated coins, top position goes to pieces where the core exposure follows the design of the coin rather than having random peeling. This Byzantine solidus looks good to me at least partly because of the contrasting outline of copper down below. Finally, there are faults that start adding interest simply because they are so severe. Many coins have flan cracks. This Gordian III sestertius became interesting centuries before anyone thought it looked like Pac-Man.

I only have one of each in AE but had a fondness for Maesa denarii from the Eastern mint (Antioch?) due to their interesting style. I always was a sucker for branch mint coins. While Juno is most common, I found it interesting that they struck a Fecunditas for a grandmother. My only Mamaea attracted my attention by being an unusual die clash where the damage was on the obverse rather than the reverse. I suspect that the reverse die involved in the clash was destroyed in the incident and was replaced by a new reverse die of the same type that struck this coin. I suppose it is also possible that this coin was struck with the obverse on top making the portrait die more susceptible to damage in a clash. I have no real way of knowing such details.

I don't collect them but happened upon a rather large box of them (1000?) at a show in Baltimore long ago and they were cheap enough that I picked out one or two that I saw as different. Some turned out to be duplicates often being off center in different ways so different parts of the legend were lost. One of the bunch was obviously more different than the rest because it was smaller weighing only 3.2g. I was hoping it was a fraction but believe it more likely was unofficial. Opinion? Later I added a few others but never got interested enough to pay five times the price of the first batch. Overall, they seemed like well made coins and attractive for the low price. I hope I have the ID's right.

A problem with frame filling photos of coins is that we lose some reference to the size of the coin. This thread requires shooting coins together to make the point but I did not do that. If I did, I would probably included the tetradrachm version of Alexander the Great to this drachm and obol but that would have been triplets. A sequel to the movie might have to include as merge with other movies. What if Arnold and Danny were joined by a precocious child (obol) and an Incredible Hulk grade giant (dekadrachm)? Drachm: Obol: Athens would be the best series for this purpose due to the large number of denominations especially if you consider the owl types from the East as well as from Athens proper. This tiny scrap of silver is Eastern and weighs 0.22g. This Athens hemiobol is 0.35g. Was the foreign copy smaller to start with or just lost so much due to corrosion?

Between us, we have several Gordian Caesar sestertii. Does anyone have the denarius? Not I!

Thanks to The Trachy Enjoyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_grosso#/media/File:Venice_Doge_Antonio_Venier_matapan_grosso.jpg

On what do they base the attribution to Cyprus? I know there are collectors who specialize there and we all know there are people with more money than they know what to do with but I'd still rather have ten $50 assorted coins rather than one shield with what CNG called a 'gorngoneion'. As far as quality goes, I tend to 'grade' such heads on a scale related to the clarity of the tongue. This one has a better than average tongue but $500??? https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gorn

Few realize just how far ahead of their times were the people we call barbarians. 🤪

Many have shown nice Valerians with excellent reverses so I'll tack on mine with what I consider an 'interesting' reverse 'situation'. My best explanation here is that two blank flans stuck together and, unnoticed, were struck together later to fall apart. I have no idea where the reverse ended up but I have the portrait. Not on the reverse is a faint indent caused by the deformation of the second flan that was not perfectly aligned with this one when struck. That is evidence that the reverse was not just filed off but was created in the manner described. I also find interest in this antoninianus with a more normal reverse using a less than common abbreviation CONCOR LEGG using the double G to indicate the legions were plural. The doubled letter plural abbreviation is standard with AVGG indicating two emperors. How many other double lettered reverses have you seen? Later we start seeing DDNN for Dominus Nostrorum and CAESS when there were multiple Caesares but this LEGG is my only example of a word other than a title using this device. More common is this CONCOR EXERC. I read this to mean that the Roman point of view was that the EXERC was the army as a whole while LEGG referred to the set of individual, numbered legions. Am I overthinking this reading this coin as exercitūs (fourth declension genitive singular) rather than exercituum the genitive plural AND, if that plural had been intended, would we see EXERCC? I hated grammar but chose to major in Classical Languages since History majors had also to study modern times which interested me even less. I never intended to become a teacher of language but the 1968 Draft Board took care of that by stopping my pursuit of anything academic. The Army at least had a better (younger!) retirement plan than being a college professor.

They will regret the 'It cannot be requested' decision and eventually offer it as an option. I note they also say that coins will be photographed AFTER they are encapsulated which might be interesting to see. I do wonder how much pressure is exerted on the thin, the cracked and the fragmented coins not to mention trachy, bractate or, the opposite, Akragas tooth coins previously unsuitable for slabbing. Have you seen a slabbed sestertius that cracked its plastic for being a tad too thick? I show below a few coins that would not be slabbed in the old system. Fortunately few of them would sell for the price of their plastic. How many would be OK in the new? I'll never know. I hope others will report when they receive their first 'unrequested' holder. If you drop the holder, will the coin shift/rotate/ break out? I assume this is not just like those flexible holders that traps the coin between pliable sheets since those are not all that clear. I believe Furryfrog Ivn has one of those?

As a rule, IMO, the worse they are, the better. My worst is also my only left facing. The reverse figure holds a rudder so can be identified as Fortuna, standing left. Again, IMO, the best Barbarous radiates are those that CAN be identified as what they 'are' but do not copy a regular issue type. I still kick myself thirty years later for not buying one that the dealer thought was worth more than the usual junk. It showed a clearly drawn stick figure of a man holding a trident and a net. Was there ever a Retiarius gladiator type officially? When I saw that, almost no one collected late Roman let alone barbarous late Roman. I hope the coin still exists in some collection that will someday reenter the market. I worry about all the things that once existed but have been lost or thrown out with the trash or destroyed in the hundreds of wars between then and now. Edit: I bought this from Don Zauche for $13. Don specialized in coins other dealers were too good to handle and always had a half price box for coin he had not been able to move along. Today, we can find a few dealers who would handle such coins but interest in these has multiplied in the last decade or so along with all those other barbarous coins. There are few periods and places that do not have at least a few barbarous coins but the Gallic Empire really is a gold mine for scrap copper.

I'm just making this up as I go along but I consider lot 511 a much inferior coin due to the unattractive centering and missing reverse legends. I know the current fad is to not care about such things but I would rather have lot 510 with more wear on it than 511 as is so the estimate may have been done by someone like me rather than like you in this regard. IF I were the consignor of lot 511, I would not in the least appreciate CNG listing my coin in the same sale of the other from a different consignor and with the difference in estimate so I would have asked CNG to remove the lot. Again IF, I had consigned a large collection or was known to CNG as a major customer I doubt they would refuse. Certainly our minds will go toward the fake option and, not having the CNG image to see now, I don't even know if 511 actually is the same coin as the HA slab rather than a 'cracked out' clone of it (there are too many possibilities). What I do believe is that those of you who do not trust a dealer like CNG to do the right thing in a matter like this really should be buying your coins somewhere else. There used to be a saying about honesty and its resemblance to pregnancy: "Either you is or you ain't." I have disagreed on several occasions with CNG in the decades since I started buying from Victor England and I do not know the new owner. I have even sent them notice of a coin in their sale that I knew to be fake and they removed it. Nobody is perfect but I have never considered CNG anything but honest. Does anyone here disagree? IF 511 does reappear later, I would not expect it to carry a larger estimate other than what is appropriate by 'inflation' (could be double as things have been going lately) but I do know that one way of getting a cheap price on a coin is to bid on the lesser of identical multiples in a sale. People with big money are likely to fight over the best coin and avoid a coin like this one which I (and only I?) consider 'defective' in comparison. Another option I would watch for is this same coin turning up in another sale (not CNG) with no mention of its track record. Years ago, I pointed out to two different dealers that a coin they were offering as 'good' was plated. On reexamination, both removed the lot but I assume the consignor, who had been told twice of the problem, just found another venue and sold the coin as solid. I have not seen that coin since. Just as with my plated example, I would be interested in hearing the whole story behind the 511 affair. Come to think of it, I would enjoy being 'a fly on the wall' at a place like CNG and be able to observe, unnoticed, all that goes on in decisions on what to list when to list and how to list the large number of coins that pass through their doors. Fantasy time completed. I return you to the facts and what you believe to be facts. Again these days it seems many people feel entitled to their own set of 'facts'.

I see nothing in the OP coin that can not be explained away as a doublestrike. I have many favorites but the one today is a flipover Septimius denarius which came very close to being the same on both sides. One side favors the obverse and the other the reverse but the alignment is rather matching.

There has long been what I consider a regrettable tendency of museum professionals to attribute statues to an emperor or famous person when the main reason for that is to bolster the interest in the item which might benefit the reputation of that institution. In some cases, fine statues are pretty obviously who they are said to be but many upper class Romans affected the style/appearance of their rulers not all that unlike the way there was a time in the US that many women wore Jackie Kennedy hair styles. How many unlabeled works were the ruler and how many were his fanboy? I consider the best example of 'uplabeling' that huge statue of a naked charioteer or the like attributed to Trebonianus Gallus. Years ago when I fist came to the Richmond, Virginia, area area I saw a full length statue of Caligula in the local art museum which I believed was patched up from pieces that did not originate together. The face seemed right but it did not sit right on the body. A few years later the statue disappeared for a while and reappeared restored with the explanation that the head had been realigned based on the grain of the marble correcting the previous, erroneous reconstruction of the broken statue. I am now able to accept the piece as one original. I seem to have misplaced my images of the new display. This is the old one. Coins (I have few and all have been shown online too many times): My favorite is the sestertius honoring the dedication of the temple of Divus Augustus showing Caligula sacrificing a bull. This as is pretty and green. I owned this one for years but did not give it an accession number because it was so rough and ugly. It has less wear than the other so would grade higher than the green one by some standards but certainly would get a 1/5 for surfaces. I kept it because it has the more scarce obverse legend honoring Augustus, his grandfather, rather than the usual Germanicus, his father. I never was able to upgrade it.

I am not suggesting anyone run out and do what I just did buying a new lens for, among other things, coin photos. So far I have only shot a few 'old favorites' but am happy with results from my Laowa 85mm f/5.6 macro. There is no auto-focus, there are no contacts to transfer EXIF data ---- just sharp glass in a solidly build and very small package. I am most impressed with what it did for my 4.5mm, 0.1g silver from Phokaea. Next is another old favorite Athenian 10x7mm obol from the early period when the tail was shown with three feathers. These are not common but available as tetradrachms but this is an obol not seen every day. To show the tail, I blew up that part more than a little bit. These images were focus stacks assembled from about 20 input images. It seemed good to try a few more normally sized coins so out came a Corinthian stater, denarius of Septimius Severus and very darkly toned AE2 of Magnentius. I was satisfied. These three were single shots of each side combined as I always do into one file before reducing to 2048 pixels wide (from the original 9000x6000). All of these were shot with a mixture of ring and directional lights adjusted in balance as seemed right at the moment. Compared to my earlier cameras and lenses, these images show more texture details and every little scratch. These are not images for people wanting to fool people on eBay that the coins are 'proof'. I bought this lens mostly for chasing bugs in the yard. Shooting coins is a bonus for me. Now I have to decide what coins to reshoot using the Canon R7 and Laowa 85mm and which to say they were good enough shot over the last twenty years. I doubt I will be using my old macro rigs much anymore.

Nice coin. Mine has some skin roughness in the face but I feel lucky to have any Philip II as Caesar. Coins as Augustus are more common but I was attracted to this leftie. It also has facial roughness but I belie this one gets it from a poor strike not fully erasing the blank flan texture. The strength of the hammer blow was not enough to force metal into the face and eagle breast so we see texture rather than detail. I'd be curious to know if it would get a slab grade as if it were worn to fine or one recognizing the lack of detail was from strike rather than wear. I'm not curious enough to pay almost what the coin cost to find out!

How can that be? That was the one guy not allowed. Would I do that?

Most of us have usb power bricks left over from other devices so many sellers save themselves the cost of including one with the device.