SimonW

27 minutes ago, David Atherton said:

Regarding Carradice and Buttrey not including it in the new RIC - the book was  commissioned by Spink in the 80s and published 20 years later. Surely Muller, a Spink employee, would've known of it and asked B. & C. about the piece?

We don't have any information, when he might have purchased the piece, do we?

Calling the coin a "piece of junk" and some of the following comments were a bit harsh, but I didn't take any of it personally. I value David's opinion, even if I do not agree with it 100%. Let's focus on the coin and a constructive discussion about it.

@David Atherton and everyone else who thinks it's obvious that the reverse must be tooled: what makes you think it's tooled, other than the unusual style of the ship? To me, the surfaces look smoothed, but the ship's details do not look tooled. The S C and the dotted border look sharp and stylistically fine. If it turns out that the reverse is not tooled, the likelihood that it is authentic increases dramatically in my opinion, since it rules out David's theory of a cast with a tooled reverse.

What else could it be? A struck/pressed forgery from a transfer obverse die with a modern or tooled transfer reverse die? Unlikely.

4 hours ago, David Atherton said:

If Muller knew of the obverse die link to a denarius (!) he would've condemned it too. 

This piece has been around awhile, but yet it didn't make it into the new RIC II.1. Ask yourself why.

Was the coin published anywhere before it turned up at Naville? Or what else makes you think the authors of RIC II.1 knew about it?

20 hours ago, panzerman said:

When checking out coins on their auction platform/ this happens. Thing comes up/ I am not a robot/ then you have to pickout cars on a street scene??????

This is so annoying! Plus it makes no sense/ why are they worried about collectors/ bidders checking out their auctions? If I were running a auction site/ I WOULD WANT lots of traffic=more bidders=higher hammer results=happy consignees=great for biddr! 

John

I understand that this is annoying. It's to prevent certain bots (the kind that doesn't follow the robots.txt instructions) from crawling our site too aggressively. I think even more annoying would be a slow site due to some crawlers eating up all the resources 🙂

Also, this should only happen if you change pages very quickly many dozens of times over a certain period of time.

1 hour ago, David Atherton said:

Simon,

I hate to say this, but there is not a chance that it is a previously unknown ancient authentic official* piece. Cross-contamination of dies between a silver denarius and a bronze quandrans is not possible for this time period ... but for a crafty modern forger it is. The reverse style is indeed very problematic, to the point it appears to have been 'created' by the forger. Also, an old pedigree is no guarantee of authenticity, as you probably already know. I suspect this fantasy fake is from the late 19th or early 20th century.

Sorry I'm being so blunt, but a coin as specious as this cannot be accepted into the Flavian cannon. I do hope that you decide to ask for a refund.

*There is a slight possibility it is an ancient forgery, but the clumsy reverse style and the amount of smoothing involved gives me reason to suspect it is more likely a modern fabrication.

Thank you very much for your opinion on the coin, David! I see your points. However, unlike you, I believe there is a small chance that it is authentic and official. If it is, it is a once in a lifetime chance. If it's not, I can return it. So I am more than happy to spend a few hours to investigate further.

Looks like I just wasted £3000 plus juice on a fake/tooled coin... or did I? 🙂

I agree with David and everyone else here in that the reverse looks off, especially compared to the usual ship types with either Domitian or Ceres on the obverse (both extremely rare). The obverse's connection to a denarius makes it even more curious.

BUT, here is why I bought it anyway:

1. Cross-denomination die-links are rare, but they do exist for the Flavian period.
2. The 1/2 century roman AE fractions are a bit of a mystery to this day. There's an unusually high number of gilded pieces (more than for any other denomination, relatively speaking), there are a number of AE denarius off-strikes, mules, and many other fun things.
3. Despite the "special" ship style, I don't see any obvious traces of tooling. The surfaces look smoothed, but otherwise not tooled. At my request, Naville examined the coin closely a second time, and they are certain that there is no tooling.
4. According to Naville, the "Mentor collection" refers to "the director of an auction house in London from '60 to '90".

If the coin is authentic and untooled, it is unique. If it's not (which I will hopefully find out once I have it in hand), I will return it and have no doubt that Naville will accept the return.

Sorry to hear you made such a big loss @Prieure de Sion!

If you buy and sell at auction within a short period of time (let's say 2-3 years), you will usually make a loss of at least 40-50%+ on average (not taking into account market fluctuations). 30-40% is what the auction house takes (usually 20-25% buyer's commission and 10-15% consignor's commission). And 10% is the average bid step. Since your bid was the highest when you bought the coin, the second highest bidder was willing to pay 10% less. If the second highest bidder bid against you multiple times, it may be even more than just the 10%. If you're buying from stores or other fixed-price offers, you'll have to add the seller's mark-up on top of that.

Take your Gordian that sold for 35 CHF as an example:

If I buy it for 35 CHF at Leu, the final price will be 43 EUR, plus payment fees, shipping costs, VAT, possible customs fees, etc., making 60+ EUR. Quite a lot for an average Gordian. You can get them for 50 EUR and less in similar condition at MA-Shops/VCoins: https://www.ma-shops.com/stollhoff/item.php?id=5113&lang=de.

7 hours ago, Hrefn said:

One of the coins was a distinctive coin of Zeno.  4.42  grams.  

I have had my eye on this coin for a while.  It is easily recognized by style, and by the distinctive scratch on the reverse. A quick ACS search of the image shows this very coin was sold by Sincona in 2017 for $965,  and later that year was in a CNG auction.  I am not sure if it sold then, and if so, at what price.  However, it was then sold by Roma for $5112, and later by St. James at $1914, before coming to the auction at which I was the high bidder.

These are all different coins if you look at them closely, but they all share the exact same condition, wear, and some flan flaws on the reverse. They are very likely transfer die forgeries. CNG withdrew theirs in 2017.

Definitely a cast. The middle one in Shanxi's post looks fine.

1 hour ago, filolif said:

Weren’t you just slamming me for saying that this was all just my opinion and now you’re saying it’s so blatantly obvious that it doesn’t even bear discussing? 😵‍💫

Change the position of the two crimes in my example if you like. All I am saying is that IMO your comparison adds nothing helpful to this discussion other than deliberately stirring the pot.

1 hour ago, filolif said:

Its a forum thread, my friend. We discuss things and not all of them are 100% perfectly proven. And they don’t need to be before we’re allowed to speculate.

You can speculate all you want, and that's all you're doing, my friend! 🙂

5 minutes ago, Väinämöinen said:

He's talking about the scenario where this is proven factually true, so this part of your message is irrelevant.

I understand what he is talking about. But again, what's the point of comparing the two in this thread? If someone is accused of murder, what's the point of saying "murder is worse than burglary"? Does it add any value to a discussion about whether the person is guilty or not?

1 hour ago, filolif said:

It's not just about stolen coins. It's about an auction house receiving stolen coins, listing them for sale and when told they're stolen, ignoring the warning. This is the allegation. Sure, it's unproven but if it's true, that would likely be of much greater concern to many people than Beale's escapades. It's not just about how much it affects them personally, it's whether or not they can imagine a scenario where it could.

Talking about what is likely a greater concern for many people is an interesting way of expressing your own opinion. If that's your opinion, that's fine, but are you speaking for anyone else other than yourself?

The main issue IMO really is that you are comparing what someone allegedly did (no evidence provided whatsoever) with what someone admittedly did. That's quite a difference, don't you think? What's the point of comparing the two?

8 minutes ago, Tetradogma said:

But that's my point - presumably CNG wouldn't make that claim if they didn't have evidence. Doesn't necessarily mean its been reported to the police

Mike Gasvoda makes this accusation on FB without giving any background. This alone does not speak well of him and CNG. If you are going to publicly discredit someone, the evidence should be made public, too.

Otherwise, malicious tongues might say that he is simply trying to do damage to a competitor.

1 hour ago, Tetradogma said:

If incorrect they would be making themselves liable for defamation...

I think that's exactly the case. In dubio pro reo. This seems to apply to the USA as well as Switzerland and most countries in between. No police report or other reliable evidence have been released. All that has been presented is hearsay. That's very thin ice, I'd say.

If there is a police report, why not share it? If there is none, why not? I believe that no auction house would or should expropriate a consignor or cancel a consignor's contract and expose themselves to legal action by the consignor simply because someone claims that the coins have been stolen, without providing any evidence. Otherwise, it could easily be abused.

21 hours ago, Troyden said:

Rare orichalcum (brass) quadrans of Titus. Unknown Balkan mint, possibly Perinthus at the Sea of Marmara.
16 mm, 2.96 g, RIC II 505-506.
Obv: Laureate head of Titus, IMP T CAES DIVI VES F AVG around
Rev: Julia Titi seated, holding patera and sceptre, IVLIA AVGVSTA around.

Great coin and thread! 🙂

19 hours ago, Troyden said:

There's surprisingly few of them around.

They used to be much rarer a few years ago. Now you see them every now and then. Here's one of mine with a slightly different obverse legend.

Titus, Quadrans (3.12 g), uncertain mint (Thrace?), 80-81 AD.
Obv. IMP T CAESR DIVI VESPAS F AVG, head of Titus, laureate, r. Rev. IVLIA AVGVSTA, Julia seated left holding patera in her right hand and transverse scepter with her left. RIC 505/6 var. (CAES [...] VES(P) F). RPC 507C var. (CAES [...] VES F).

If you're interested in fractions, have a look at this thread:
https://www.numisforums.com/topic/826-fractional-bronzes-of-the-roman-empire-quadrantes-semisses-tesserae/

Thank you all for the heads up. Fortunately, this was just a setup mistake. The fee has been removed from all invoices below 1000 EUR.

1 hour ago, Coinmaster said:

What's interesting is that the use of the quadrants was limited to the military camp(s), while other denominations are being found in rural settlements.

I don't think that fractions were limited to military camps, but that they entered the market through military camps (not exclusively). Not because their function was limited to something that was available in military camps, but because soldiers naturally had the biggest need for small change. They didn't produce any goods that they could use for small transactions and, thus, were dependent on small denominations to pay for whatever they bought.

I strongly recommend Van Heesch's article PROVIDING MARKETS WITH SMALL CHANGE IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE: ITALY AND GAUL. It's available on Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/es/951078/Providing_Markets_with_Small_Change_in_the_Early_Roman_Empire_Italy_and_Gaul_in_Revue_belge_de_Numismatique_155_2009_p_125_142 

16 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

I think Decius' 'semis' is the only Quadrans/Semis I have 🫢.

I've heard the theory that T.D.'s 'Semis' was an experimental reduced As.  The denomination would have been pretty worthless by then. Any theories why this late semis happened?

 

We have discussed Trajan Decius' "Semis" on page 1 of this thread 🙂 Here is what I wrote:

On 8/6/2022 at 10:59 AM, SimonW said:

Regarding the Trajan Decius Semis: I think the point NGC makes is about the radiate coins (Dupondii?) that weigh about the same as the "Asses". You could argue that they are both Asses or both Dupondii. Or they are Asses and Dupondii and the weight simply doesn't matter. Now, the Sestertii weigh about half what the double Sestertii do on average, I would say. So calling all the coins that weigh half a Sestertius "Dupondius" and the smallest denomination "As" or "reduced As" is not completely unlogical. The fact that there haven't been any Semisses for almost a century inbetween adds to that theory.

As a collector of Semisses, however, I still like to believe that they are Semisses 🙂

Here is mine:

Traianus Decius, Semis (3.41 g), Rome, 249-251 AD.
Obv. IMP C M Q TRAIANVS DECIVS AVG, bust of Traianus Decius, laureate, r., cuirassed. Rev. S – C, Mars, helmeted, in military attire, standing left, resting right hand on shield and holding vertical spear in left hand. RIC 128 (S).
Ex Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 64, lot 2703

 

12 hours ago, Coinmaster said:

About the purpose/usage of semis/quadrans, it seems they aren't found in settlements and mainly in the context of military camps. That would indicate they were produced not as small change, but more as tokens or for exchange for a specific item, service of goal. Like entrance to a bath house.

That's an interesting theory. But why would the official roman mint care about a specific item or entrance token to a bath house? Fractions were certainly used in military camps where a lot of small-scale transactions happened. But rather as a normal mean of payment than as tokens for specific items in my opinion. The coin mentioned in the article above (Domitian, RIC II 123) is one of the most common quadrantes under Domitian. I think it's very well possible that the camp in Nijmegen had a shortage of smaller denominations and, thus, got a consignment of what was produced in the roman mint at that time.

But even if they were tokens, they were worth less than an as (the most commonly used of the small denominations) and you would probably not have used them as a store of value (to get back to your original question).

"Small change" may be the wrong term compared to todays small change. An as (= 2 semisses = 4 quadrantes) was still worth about an hourly wage of a common soldier. But these denominations were certainly mostly used for small-scale transactions. Thus, the term.

On 4/30/2023 at 10:07 PM, Coinmaster said:

I found the Van Heesch thesis:

https://www.academia.edu/20381200/Studie_over_de_semis_en_de_quadrans_van_Domitianus_tot_en_met_Antoninus_Pius

And fortunately I own the Woytek books about the Traian coins, but are there any catalogues or other (digital?) overview publications with these coins? 

I believe Van Heesch's thesis is the most comprehensive reference for fractions between Trajan and Antoninus Pius (including the anonymous issues) to this date, certainly much more extensive than RIC. Unfortunately, the plates published on Academia are not very good. I have them in a higher resolution. If you are interested, let me know. I am happy to share them.

I've never checked if Woytek is more complete for fractions minted under Trajan, but that's certainly possible.

On 4/30/2023 at 10:07 PM, Coinmaster said:

And a question: are there no hoards with (also) these coin types? If not, what could be the reason?

There have been some at archaeological sites (mostly markets, taverns, etc.). In Van Heesch's article PROVIDING MARKETS WITH SMALL CHANGE IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE: ITALY AND GAUL he writes:

... Near the entrance of another building in Pompeii excavated in 1822, a box was found with 35 denarii, 354 sestertii, 188 asses or dupondii and 586 small bronzes or quadrantes. At another site, a tavern, a pot contained 374 asses or dupondii and 1237 quadrantes, ...

But I believe it's rather rare. If you want to hide your savings, it's probably easier to bury a handful of denarii or aurei than a huge load of small change 🙂

22 hours ago, zadie said:

Really cool to finally learn what it actually is. Did the Numismatikforum poster say anything about what seal capsules are? I've never heard about it before

I've never heard of them before either, but a Google search for "Siegelkapsel" turned up a German Wikipedia page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegelkapsel) that says (translated):

Seal capsules are protective covers for seals, usually made of wood or metal. Especially in Roman times, seal capsules were used to protect the seals on documents such as wax tablets.

Here's an interesting book about "the seal capsuls from Augusta Raurica":
https://www.augustaraurica.ch/assets/content/files/publikationen/Forschungen-in-Augst/Fia44.pdf

13 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Now my question is: since these aren’t true tesserae, will you keep them in the collection?

I still find the motives quite intriguing and will keep them nonetheless 🙂

On the German Numismatikforum someone pointed out that these are the lids of roman-gallic seal capsuls (probably 2nd century AD) and shared some pictures of intact capsuls that I wanted to share here, too.

With a pre bid you basically choose the auction house to bid on your behalf. There's no other way than to disclose your bid to them. One solution is to choose someone else to bid on your behalf, if you can't participate live. Many dealers are offering this service for a few %.

7 minutes ago, zadie said:

This should surprise exactly no one and is common practice for every single auction house that you bid with

Exactly. Pre bids are an equivalent to the old mail bids and are always transfered and visible to the auction house. Here's a short excerpt from the "What is a pre bid?" link just below the bidding field on biddr:

After submission, a pre bid is forwarded to the corresponding auction house. The auction house can either accept or reject the pre bid. If the auction house accepts the pre bid, it will be carried out by the auction house on behalf of the bidder during the auction.

In case of an online auction that takes place on biddr.com and for which pre bidding is public, the pre bid is carried out automatically and step by step against other bidders by our system. The amount of the bid remains a secret until it is reached and is only known to the auction house.

Proxy bids on the other hand:

After submission, a proxy bid is safely stored in biddr.com's system and is executed step by step against other bidders during the live bidding process as if the bidder were bidding themselves. The amount of the bid remains a secret and, unlike a pre bid, will not be transmitted to the auction house in advance.

For this reason, a proxy bid does not have temporal priority over other bids and it may happen that the proxy bidder is not the winning bidder, if the maximum bid has been reached and was first bid by a competing bidder due to the alternating execution of a proxy bid.

For example: If the proxy bid is 300 EUR, the auction lot opens at 260 EUR and the bidding steps are 20 EUR, the system will bid 280 EUR for the proxy bidder. If another bidder placed a bid of 300 EUR, the maximum amount of the proxy bid would be reached and the system could not bid any more. The competing bidder would win the lot.

If a proxy bid is successful, it is subject to the same auction terms as a normal live bid. The auction terms of the corresponding auction house apply.

@IanG that's not exactly shill bidding. Many auction houses maintain a stock and have a shop or a fixed price list for which they buy not only from other auctions, but also from their own auctions where coins are consigned to by third-parties.

As a buyer, I don't think this is particularly fair since the auction house has an information advantage and it has the potential for conflict of interest and even abuse (e.g. use to hide shill bidding). However, as far as I know, it's not against the law in the countries where it's practiced (as long as it's not misused for shill bidding) and most auction houses are transparent about it (e.g. in their auction terms).

As a consignor, I appreciate every bid that raises the hammer, be it from a collector, a dealer or the auction house itself where I consigned my coins to.