idesofmarch01

Pompeii: Breathtaking new paintings found at ancient city Archaeologists unearth significant new paintings in the ancient Roman town buried by a volcano in AD79. Read in BBC News: https://apple.news/AbRsZZepITcyLvFt5gwaaiA

"Guarantee" needs further definition and clarification as used in this paragraph. What, exactly, is their liability if the coin is later proved a forgery? We know for a fact that NGC does NOT guarantee refunding the full purchase price (hammer price plus buyer's premium and shipping) in the event that the authenticity of the coin is later proven to be false. As far as I know, there is no third-party grading company that guarantees to refund the buyer's full costs in the event that the slabbed coin is a forgery. I believe guarantees such as the one quoted above to be essentially worthless.

I, too, find Heritage's T&Cs confusing and contradictory. In addition to the excerpt you quote above (TERM G) they also include the following: COINS and CURRENCY TERM D Coins sold referencing a third-party grading service are sold “as is” without any express or implied warranty, except for a guarantee by Auctioneer that they are genuine. Certain warranties may be available from the grading services and the Bidder is referred to them for further details: Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC), P.O. Box 4776, Sarasota, FL 34230, http://www.ngccoin.com/services/writtenguarantee.asp; Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), PO Box 9458, Newport Beach, CA 92658, http://www.pcgs.com/ guarantee.html; ANACS, 6555 S. Kenton St. Ste. 303, Englewood, CO 80111; and Independent Coin Grading Co. (ICG), 7901 East Belleview Ave., Suite 50, Englewood, CO 80111. What does the phrase "referencing a third-party grading service" mean? I would reasonably interpret it to include slabbed coins, since the T&Cs do not otherwise clarify this phrase. I would be wary purchasing a slabbed ancient coin from them, unless I clarified this issue directly, in writing, with an authorized representative of Heritage.

I'm not sure that this assertion is correct. For example, here is part of CNG's Terms and Conditions for purchases from their coin shop: II. TERMS OF SALE (ORDERS FROM COIN SHOP) 1. General Information. The point of sale for all items online is Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All orders are sent from Pennsylvania. 2. Guaranty and Return Privilege. All items are guaranteed genuine. Any coin order may be returned within fourteen days of receipt for any reason. Coins that have been encapsulated ("slabbed") by a grading and/or authentication service may not be returned for any reason, including authenticity, if they have been removed from the encapsulation ("slab"). The customer shall bear the cost of returning all items and shall insure them for their full value. Books are not sent on approval and are not subject to return. I've highlighted in bold their guarantee of authenticity. Notably, it does NOT exclude encapsulated items unless the coin has been removed from the slab; nor does it have a time limit. There is similar language in the Terms and Conditions of every auction house from which I purchase, although I rarely find myself bidding on encapsulated coins. Having dealt with hundreds of written contracts during my life (although I'm not an attorney), I personally would interpret this language as a non-expiring guarantee of authenticity for encapsulated coins -- the fact that it specifically uses the phrase "including authenticity" when referring to encapsulated coins makes it even more likely that slabbed coins are guaranteed to be authentic. To me, it doesn't make sense that an auction house wouldn't guarantee the authenticity of a slabbed coin. Personally, I would never bid on a coin, slabbed or not, whose authenticity isn't guaranteed by the auction house or dealer, and I assume most other collectors would feel the same. In response to the questions in your latest post, I would defer to DonnaML or any other attorneys on this site, but assuming that CNG had the same or a similar clause about authenticity in its 2006 T&Cs, then the current owner could possibly force a return to the 2018 seller via an expert's opinion that the coin is a forgery, and thereafter the 2018 seller (if he/she is the next most recent purchaser) could force a return to the 2006 purchaser, who would then make a claim to CNG. My guess is that the authenticity would end up being argued between CNG and any expert's opinion of non-authenticity, but that's a different matter.

Is it April 1st already?

What if someone started a topic titled: "I think I've discovered a misattributed coin in an auction. Here's my research and logic." Would anyone seriously object to such a thread? Probably not. The above title itself implies that the author: (1) is not accusing the auction house of bad faith or incompetence; (2) has researched the issue and is ready to present supporting facts and logic; and (3) allows for the possibility that he/she could be wrong about the his/her conclusion. I think the issue in this topic comes from the use of the phrase "... "out" misattributed coins..." which seems to imply that the auction house is absolutely wrong, and there is no room for possible disagreement on the facts and logic. But reasonable people can, in good faith, disagree on facts and conclusions. Why not just present the facts dispassionately and objectively, and let others draw their own conclusions?

I've thought about this issue -- restoring a painting vs. tooling a coin -- many times, and for me the answer lies in the fundamental nature and intention of these two different objects. Paintings are intended to be unique (or limited edition) works of art, and if it were possible, the artist would use material that would never degrade, thus preserving the original artistic intention. The painting is not intended to circulate, be touched, have smoke discolor it or other detritus adhere to it, etc. All of this deterioration is sadly inevitable, and thus it makes perfect sense (and is completely justifiable) to apply whatever minimal restoration that preserves the painting. Coins, on the other hand, are intended for circulation and thus are expected to be worn and degraded over time. They are not ever expected to last forever, thus making well-preserved, uncirculated examples extremely desirable, since they represent the untouched original vision of the engraver/artist. Thus tooling or re-engraving a worn coin is a defacement of the coin, rather than a restoration, relative to its original purpose, and consequently it is unjustifiable to tool a coin.

I want to thank everyone for their compliments and comments. I especially enjoyed seeing other collectors' coins illustrating ancient myths, many of which helped me learn myths that I didn't know existed. Nor did I realize that there's even historical fiction based on this myth! This site really helps expand my horizons on ancient coins, via the coin-related threads, the range of casual-to-scholarly research, and the ensuing discussions. I continually look forward to seeing new coins and new topics!

You're right -- I misunderstood. My statement that most AEs have been "smoothed" -- according to my definition of "smoothing" -- is based on two observations: (1) debris and detritus will form on the surfaces of essentially 100% of AEs unless the AEs have been submerged in, say, a river; and (2) at least some of this debris and detritus is usually removed during cleaning, leaving the center of the fields of the AEs smoother-appearing than the sections of the fields that are closer to devices and legends. Again, it's inappropriate to sidetrack this thread but I've also been told by dealers and experts that smoothing of AEs is typical and common.

Absolutely! This isn't a thread about tooling so it's inappropriate to sidetrack it by getting into a detailed discussion about why a coin does or doesn't appear tooled, but for me one giveaway is the sharpness of details on an otherwise well-worn coin that has obviously experienced a lot of circulation wear. You can see a lot of tooled bronzes by using ACSEARCH and entering the phrase "tooling sestertius" to get an extensive list of AEs that have been described as tooled, by the auction houses themselves! That's why my post above had nothing whatsoever to do with judging the coin's authenticity. I was just giving Naville the benefit of the doubt when it came to their representation that it wasn't tooled. In the absence of additional information, I just think it's fair to examine Naville's representation objectively and provide logical support for one's observations.

The portrayal of Greek mythology on their coins has always fascinated me, from Pegasus, to the Chimaera, to the labors of Herakles. This coin is my first foray into Greek coinage that represents their ancient myths. CRETE, Knossos. Mid 2nd-early 1st centuries BC. AR Tetradrachm (32mm, 15.67 g, 12h). Diademed and bearded head (of Minos?) right / Labyrinth; KNΩ/Σ-I/ΩN in three lines across field. Cf. Svoronos, Numismatique 98–101 and 177–8 (for type). An unpublished issue, struck between Svoronos types 98 and 177. This coin, from Triton XXVII, has an excellent representation of the labyrinth on the reverse, with the obverse showing a bearded head, possibly of Minos himself. The coin is quite large – 32.67mm by my measurement – as large as most Roman sestertii. CNG’s picture of it is a bit flat, and the coin is more vibrant and stunning in hand. The labyrinth itself is a real construct; you can trace its path from the entrance all the way to the innermost sanctum. The Myth (In Brief) In Greek mythology, Minos became King of Crete partly through the auspices of the sea god Poseidon, who responded to Minos’s prayers by sending him a snow-white bull as a sign of Poseidon’s favor. Although Minos was to sacrifice the bull in honor of Poseidon, he was mesmerized by the bull’s beauty and kept it, sacrificing a substitute bull instead. This didn’t fool Poseidon, and to punish Minos, Poseidon made Minos’s wife Pasiphae fall in love with the bull. Subsequently, Pasiphae had the craftsman Daedalus create a hollow wooden cow, which she climbed into in order to mate with the bull. Defying all (un)known laws of genetics, Pasiphae bore an offspring Asterius, the Minotaur. Clearly, much of Greek mythology is R-rated. In most Greek mythology, the Minotaur has the head and tail of a bull, and the torso of a man. Although Pasiphae initially nursed the Minotaur, as he grew he became ferocious and required humans as food. Minos found this just a bit distressing, and after consulting with the Oracle at Delphi, constructed a gigantic labyrinth to contain the Minotaur. Sometime later, after Minos’s son Androgeus died, his death was attributed to the Athenians (although ancient sources seem to differ on exactly how the Athenians were responsible). When Minos attacked and defeated Athens, King Aegeus was to send seven young men and seven young maidens, every seven years (some versions say every year) as a feast for the Minotaur. By the third sacrifice, the Athens prince Theseus was getting a bit tired of the ritual and volunteered to go himself and kill the Minotaur. When he got to Crete, Minos’s daughter Ariadne fell madly in love with Theseus and volunteered to help Theseus navigate the labyrinth and kill the Minotaur. Theseus succeeded at this task, and sailed with Ariadne away from Crete. Unfortunately, all did not end well. Theseus abandoned Ariadne on the island of Naxos, and on his way back to Athens to reunite with his father, forgot to change the sail of his ship from black (indicating to his father that Theseus had failed and was dead) to white (indicating that Theseus had succeeded). King Aegeus saw the black sail from a distance, presumed his son was dead, and killed himself by leaping into the sea that’s now named after him – the Aegean sea. Theseus ascended to Aegeus’s throne. At least Ariadne went on to a better fate than Aegeus. She recovered from her abandonment on Naxos later when Dionysus fell madly in love with her after he saw her asleep, and married her. Feel free to post your coins that illustrate ancient myths!

Personally, while I'm not an expert here, I don't see the usual signs of tooling anywhere on this coin. E.g., there are no exceedingly sharp lines and delineations in areas that otherwise show significant circulation wear, or areas of uneven sharpness (such as the fine lines in the reverse) while the legends are unsharp. There is obvious smoothing in the fields but that's to be expected with any AE. Whether or not this coin is authentic, I'm inclined to believe Naville's representation that they don't see any traces of tooling on the reverse.

Just a peripheral observation about Roman coins in auctions during the past year or more: it's my impression that prices for Roman coins have not been nearly as strong as prices for Greek coins, from which I'd infer that it's a good time to aggressively pursue those Roman coins on your bucket list. I don't know what might be driving Greek coin prices into the stratosphere, but one only has to take a look at CNG's current fixed price list of Greek coins (anyone here stepping up for https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=396449?) to see how strong these prices currently are.

I was fortunate to win my first Greek coin, a mythological-themed coin that I have long sought but have had difficulty finding in a condition that adequately illustrates the myth. Details will follow. Don't know if I want to wait until the coin is in hand, or reveal it early.

Although I'm a profoundly non-religious person, I do find amusing a saying that I once heard: "When the angels want to please God, they play Bach; when they want to please themselves, they play Mozart."

This has been a very interesting thread -- not only the topic itself but also the strength and depth of the responses it has elicited. I fully understand the OP's disappointment with his results, especially based on his expectations from Leu. To his great credit, he acknowledges his own role and responsibility in not obtaining more information about the auction prior to consigning his coins, but much of this was information that he couldn't be expected to ask about, especially based on reasonable assumptions about Leu. E.g., you wouldn't normally expect an auction house to group your coins into (seemingly random) lots unilaterally and without notifying you; nor would you think to ask how big the auction was ("Is it 7,000+ coins?") -- this was obviously a huge factor in driving prices lower. Personally, though, I've been puzzled and a little bewildered by the (mostly) unsupported assertions, along with some of the more judgmental adjectives, directed at not only the OP, but dealers and auction houses in general. One of the assertions was that the OP and the auction house were trying to "flip" the coins that were offered. Is this really true? And if so, what's wrong with it? Any dealer who buys coins at an auction will almost immediately list them ("flip" them?) at a (sometimes significant) markup in his/her store based on what he/she believes they're worth in the retail market. Sometimes these markups are reasonable, sometimes they're absurdly unrealistic, but that's a risk taken by the dealer. Plus, this assertion was peripheral to the points that the OP was trying to elucidate. But more puzzling, at least to me, are the multiple assertions by members here about what is a "fair market price" or "fair prices" and their frustration, and even anger, at being outbid by others who evidently set their fair market price at a higher maximum bid. Any auction is only a snapshot of the coins that are currently offered. If a collector or dealer really wants a particular coin, that coin's hammer price probably won't reflect previous hammer prices. There's almost no way of knowing what the demand will be for any specific coin at any specific auction, and you always run the risk of being outbid by a collector who just "has to have" that coin, or a dealer who's going to add it to his/her online catalog at an absurdly high markup in the hope of turning a large profit. This has happened to almost everyone here who has bid on auctions. All you can do is hope that the next time such a coin comes up for auction, the bidding won't be as fierce. Even more puzzling is use of the adjective "moral" to describe the pricing choices of dealers who buy coins at auction. Is it "immoral" to price coins in a way that is too expensive for my or your personal budget? How does this adjective even apply? The only principles that absolutely govern coin dealers and auction houses are laws -- the country's laws, and the auction's or dealer's Terms and Conditions of Sales. That's it. While it can be argued that dealers should act ethically (NOT the same as morally), the definition of "ethically" can be a grey area, and as far as I know acting ethically isn't a requirement and won't help you in a court of law (unless of course the country's laws state this). The assertion that "someone" is "skimming" at auctions and causing collectors to "pay more" is not only unsupported but flies in the face of financial common sense: dealers who consistently overbid for coins and list them for unrealistic prices are unlikely to stay in business very long. The best tactic in dealing with an unethical dealer is simply to stop doing business with them. Dealers who buy at auctions make mistakes too. They may overestimate the future market for the coins on which they bid, or might even be trying to drive prices upward in the long run -- this is possibly why so many ancient coins are being slabbed nowadays. None of us here likes this idea, but other than sticking to a reasonable budget at auctions, and not doing business with dealers and auction houses that you consider unethical, I'm not sure anything else effectively can be done.

For those coins that were won by this bidder, how did the fixed prices in the auction house shop compare with the hammer prices the day before? Would it be possible to list the hammer price vs. the subsequent retail price for 4 - 5 coins? If an auction house is bidding on coins at its own or another auction, it indicates (to me) that it thinks the coin(s) might be undervalued and there is a profit to be made at retail. If I'm bidding on the same coin, this tends to legitimize my interest in the coin and also allows me to adjust my maximum bid to a higher amount, since the auction house likely will need to mark up the hammer price by at least 30% to make a reasonable profit, and I don't need to do this since I don't plan on reselling the coin immediately. It's true that an auction house won't "pay" a buyer's premium on coins in its own auction, but they're still at a disadvantage since even a 25% buyer's fee is likely less than the retail markup that they plan to add. This doesn't mean that, in every instance, an auction house is bidding in good faith for its own retail shop -- it's always possible that they're just trying to drive up the hammer price -- but for legitimate, well-know auction houses that also maintain a retail catalog, I'm encouraged rather than discouraged when they join the bidding for coins that interest me.

Absolutely love this coin! The abstract nature of the wolf art makes the animal both endearing and frightening simultaneously. I've been looking for one of these myself.

In the event that a collector has a good faith, supportable belief that a coin being offered at a public auction or by a dealer is a forgery, my opinion is that it's almost a duty to discuss this publicly. Specifically, a thread along the lines of "I believe that this coin offered by [dealer/auction house] is a forgery for the following reasons:" would be the method for doing this. It's imperative that the collector can also supply his/her reasoning and facts to support their conclusion, since without it, the discussion is simply a personal suspicion and could be interpreted as an attack on the dealer or auction. If the coin in question is owned by a private collector, e.g., here on NumisForums, then I think the proper etiquette would be first to contact the collector privately with one's suspicion and reasoning. I would leave it up to the owner whether or not to take the discussion public. The best way to expose forgeries and decrease the number of fake coins is by objectively exposing all such forgeries. Turning a blind eye to a coin that is likely to be non-genuine is rewarding forgers with a victory.

How do you plan to have it authenticated?

I'm curious -- do you have any specific reasons to believe that the coin isn't authentic? E.g., dodgy seller, price too low, seam on edges, low weight, etc.? While I'm not an expert in detecting forgeries, I've seen and handled a reasonable number of first century Roman bronzes, and nothing about your coin seems inauthentic.

According to my copy of RIC, your coin should be a "65G" with the obverse legend IMP NERO CAESAR AVG P MAX TR P P P, Nero laureate left, and triumphal arch on the reverse. It appears that it simply isn't listed since none of RIC 573, 574, or 575 has all of these specific legends and features. So you seem to have an unlisted type, at least in RIC. I don't have any of the other references so I can't be helpful in checking those sources. Congratulations on having an unlisted type! By the way, nice coin too -- Nero's coins almost always seem to be attractively struck even those that have weathered some circulation.

Will a set of these work? They're from around 300 BCE:

Nero's coinage seems to encompass both history (as in AJ's Port of Ostia sestertius above, although the credit for this project should really go to Claudius!) and artistry, as can be seen in the many coins posted in this thread. Possibly the two coins in my collection that exhibit the most artistry on both the obverse and reverse are these denarius and aureus: The level of detail, especially on the reverses, to which the engravers were willing to go on such a small "canvas" is nothing short of amazing.