idesofmarch01

I think that this coin is possibly a cleaned-up version of the Paduan copy sold by CNG in Electronic Auction 489, lot 797: If it's not this same coin, it is remarkably similarly in most respects. E.g., the surrounding dots on the reverse appear and disappear on almost exactly the same location in both coins, as well as being almost the exact same distance from the edge of the coin, which I think would be highly unlikely on a genuine coin vs. a Paduan copy. Note that CNG's description also states "Brown patina with green deposits" so the CNG picture doesn't accurately represent the color. Also note that the CNG coin appears very slightly elongated along the horizontal axis which could be an artifact of the photo processing. It's possible that Monnais D'Anton is unaware that this might be a Paduan copy and is pricing it as if it's genuine. I surely would not bid on this coin unless I had an independent expert examine and verify it in person, and you might consider notifying the auction house of this similar sale by CNG.

If it's an artificially applied patina, is that a deal-breaker? All three coins appear to be genuine and not tooled, plus the reverses exhibit pretty good detail. The patinas don't appear to be obscuring flaws on the coins, so other than possibly being artificial, there's no real downside to whether or not the coins were re-patinated. Possibly I'm missing something here?

As this thread illustrates, first and second century sestertii especially seem to be well-centered and well-engraved, and it's usually possible to find a second century sestertius in reasonably good condition at an affordable price. They're fun to hold and imagine their use in commerce, since the sestertius was the denomination in which most costs were reckoned. For those who are wary of collecting AEs due to possible smoothing: My personal experience and observation is that essentially 100% of collectible Roman AEs have been at least somewhat smoothed to remove the debris and detritus that accumulated on their surfaces after they ceased circulating. During their life, circulation wear would have kept their surfaces smooth and free from debris, but post-circulation any debris (usually dirt) that contacted the coin's surface eventually would have adhered to the fields and devices in a semi-permanent way. Removing this debris during the coin's cleaning isn't tooling or re-engraving, since no edges are being sharpened nor are details being enhanced -- the coin is simply being returned to its condition when it ceased circulating. Of course, over-zealous and over-aggressive smoothing can remove some of the coin's original surface and patina, either inadvertently or intentionally, giving the coin a somewhat artificial look. The real difficulty with evaluating AEs is detecting and avoiding actual tooling and re-engraving, which can be difficult if not impossible from just a picture. Buying from a reputable dealer with a return policy for tooled coins is a good start. The best approach is to have a knowledgeable expert examine the coin in-hand prior to purchase, but this is impractical for most collectors. Post-purchase examination by an expert or even NGC is a reasonable alternative, but obviously will add to the cost. Despite the pitfalls of purchasing these large AEs, I would encourage any interested collector to take the plunge. As you can see from the coins posted in this thread, these can be very rewarding coins to own.

I wonder if this depends on the specifics of the interaction that the couple had with the antique dealer in order to sell the mask. Presumably, the couple went to the antique dealer to rely on his/her expertise in the authenticity and evaluation of the mask's value. In this case, at least in the U.S., I think the antique dealer is assumed to have expertise and thus must advise the couple in good faith, which obviously did not happen here. On the other hand, it's possible that the couple said something like "We have this old mask that nobody wants and we just want to sell it. How much will you give us for it?" In this case, maybe the couple didn't ask for advice or expertise from the antique dealer, and U.S. law may be a bit fuzzier under these circumstances. It will be informative to hear what DonnaML has to say about this.

For me, one of the most curious aspects of these fakes is the financial model that supports them. These appear to be modestly priced coins, selling at retail in the range of $100 - $200. Let's assign an average sale price of $150, and an average cost (to the counterfeiter) of $5.00. Further, I hypothesize that many of these coins are not sold directly to consumers but at a discount to dealers, so that the counterfeiter doesn't realize the full $145.00 net profit, but maybe he sells to the dealer for $50.00. So I would postulate that the average profit, per coin, to the counterfeiter, is maybe $100.00. How can this possibly be a profitable coin to counterfeit? To make even $10,000 the counterfeiter would have to sell 100 of these coins, essentially flooding the market and likely creating suspicion about their provenance. Alternatively, the counterfeiter could release them slowly to the market but that seriously time-dilutes his ROI. From this I would infer at the very least that (1) he's counterfeiting a lot of other coins during this time period, and (2) he lives in an area where his cost of living is low compared to his per-counterfeit profit. Seems like a tough way to make a living.

This is, I believe, exactly correct -- at least in the U.S. I'll defer to DonnaML's professional opinion should she decide to comment, but while the legal authorities might be interested in the path these coins took to the auction house, that does not affect the person claiming to be the owner as long as he/she can prove legal ownership, and that the coins were stolen or otherwise illegally obtained (by fraudulent transaction, etc.). That individual still owns the coins legally and Leu is not legally permitted to sell them. It is irrelevant how Leu obtained them.

At least once or twice a year a new thread about slabs pops up on Numis Forums. Personally, I actually like these threads, mainly to read others’ opinions and see if there are any new insights from the previous thread about slabs. I found this latest thread to be interesting for the back-and-forth among some of the collectors here regarding the advantages vs. disadvantages of slabs. Necessarily, though, these opinions are formulated from the point of view of collectors; I think it’s accurate to assume that the vast majority of those who post here consider themselves to be at least semi-serious collectors of ancient coins. This most recent thread started me thinking about the entire universe of potential purchasers of ancient coins, and the relevance of slabbed vs. unslabbed coins to various subsets of that universe. (Note that I purposely differentiate purchasers since it’s a much larger set than collectors.) In particular, I wonder about the various subsets for whom a slabbed coin would affect a purchasing difference vs. the exact same coin unslabbed. For a truly serious collector purchasing a coin for his/her own collection – regardless of the fundamental reasons he/she collects ancient coins – my hypothesis is that the slab would make no difference whatsoever in any purchasing decision. This is certainly the case for me – my evaluation of a coin is based on many factors, but whatever is added by the slab (mainly the grade) is at most a curiosity. That brings me to my first question for the collectors here: Is there anyone on Numis Forums for whom a slabbed coin affects their purchasing decision of a coin for their own collection? Note that I’m not asking about the possible effect of slabbing on the coin’s price. Simply, if you’re evaluating the exact same coin slabbed vs. unslabbed – all other factors being equal – does it make a difference to you. If so, why? I also hypothesize that there are many individuals in the universe of potential purchasers for whom the slab makes a difference – and possibly a significant difference. Specifically, speculators, novice collectors, and casual collectors seem to be subgroups for whom the slab makes a difference, albeit for different reasons in most cases. And that’s what I think creates the back-and-forth that I read among the posts here: most (probably all) of the differences of opinions arise from serious collectors writing from the point of view of a different subgroup of potential purchasers. E.g., even though you might be a serious collector, you understand that a novice would prefer a slabbed coin for the higher assurance that the coin is genuine. Or, e.g., even if you’re a collector you like to speculate on ancient coins occasionally and will flip a slabbed coin to make a profit. Maybe my hypothesis is wrong – maybe there are serious collectors here who have thought “Gee, I’d buy that coin if it were slabbed but I don’t want it unslabbed” or vice versa (all other factors being equal). But I don’t think so. Thus, as long as there are serious collectors of ancient coins, I believe (hope?) that slabs will not become universal as they seem to be in other coin collecting areas. On the other hand, it’s understandable that a collector selling his/her collection would want to maximize the sales price of each coin and might have many of their coins slabbed in the hopes that doing so will increase the sales price, as long as there are sufficient non-serious collectors in the market to purchase their coins. Who knows? I invite everyone to share their thoughts about this.

I'm curious as to why collectors would care more about edge marks that are believed to be from mounting, as compared to normal edge marks from circulation wear and tear? When I evaluate a coin's condition, scratches and marks are, well, just scratches and marks. I've never quite figured out why it would matter how the marks got there. Can anyone elucidate?

Hadrian's Travel Series reverses convinced me to extend my collecting interests outside of the 12 Caesars. Artistically, almost all of Hadrian's portraits seem to be at least very good, and the history documented in his travel series is for me the most interesting of any individual emperor. Rather than posting each coin individually, I've assembled a many-times-shown-previously virtual tray:

My impression of Domitian's reverses is that many are indirect, or direct, self-aggrandizement. On this sestertius, Mars seems to be portrayed particularly arrogantly: DOMITIAN 69 - 81 AD. AE Sestertius (26.88 g.) Thrace 80-81 AD RIC 509 Titus CAES DIVI AVG VESP F DOMITIANVS COS VII, laureate head right / S C across field, Mars walking right, holding spear in right hand, trophy over left shoulder On this denarius, Domitian portrays himself on a horse not just in a normal gait, but in a showy prance: DOMITIAN 81 - 96 A.D. AR Denarius (3.59 g.) Rome 73 A.D. RIC Vespasian 680 CAES AVG F DOMIT COS II Laureate head right. Rev. Domitian riding on horse prancing left, holding scepter in left hand and raising right. And finally, with a full bust of Minerva on the reverse -- elevating him to the same level as a goddess? DOMITIAN 81 - 96 A.D. AV Aureus (7.43 g.). Rome 84 A.D. IMP CAES DOMI - TIANVS AVG GERMANIC Laureate and draped bust l. Rev. P M TR POT III - IMP V COS X P P Helmeted and draped bust of Minerva r. Biaggi 441 (this coin)

A number of my Titus collection have reverses that qualify for this thread, starting with a dupondius with some unique toning: TITUS AE Dupondius (14.64 g.) Rome 74 A.D. RIC 761 T CAESAR IMP PONT Laureate head right. Rev. TR POT COS III CENSOR Winged caduceus between two cornucopiae in saltire. I also have a couple reverses from Titus' animal collection: TITUS 69 - 79 A.D. AR Denarius (3.31 g.), Rome 80 A.D. RIC 115 IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM Laureate head of Titus right. Rev. TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P Elephant, wearing cuirass, advancing left. TITUS 69 - 79 A.D. AV Aureus (7.39 g.) Rome mint 73 A.D. RIC Vespasian 857 T CAESAR - IMP VESPASIAN Laureate head r. Rev. COS V Cow standing r. Biaggi 353 (this coin)

None of my Galba/Otho/Vitellius coins really qualified for this thread -- their obverse portraits may be highly artistic, but their reverses are the usual assortment of various gods and goddesses being invoked for the glory of the short-lived emperor. For Vespasian, I do feel I have some more-interesting-than-average types, beginning with a seemingly standard god (Neptune) whom the engraver decided to present as anatomically correctly as possible on a small coin: VESPASIAN 69 - 71 A.D. AV Aureus (7.35 g.) Rome Jul. - Dec. 71 A.D. RIC 44 IMP CAES VESP AVG P M Laureate head right. Rev. NEP - RED Neptune standing left, right foot on globe, holding acrostolium and scepter. Ex Hirsch XXXI, 1912, 1194 and Numismatica Genevensis IV, 2006, 165, sales. Of course Vespasian would memorialize his signature military triumph with his Judaea Capta reverses, of which I have couple: VESPASIAN 69 - 71 A.D. AR Denarius (3.22 g.), Rome 69 - 70 A.D. RIC 2 IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG Laureate head of Vespasian REV. IVDAEA IN EXERGUE, mourning Jewess seated under trophy. VESPASIAN AE Sestertius (26.01 g.) Rome 71 A.D. RIC 167 IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS III Laureate head of Vesp. r. Rev IVDA - EA CAPTA S C Jewess seated r., Vesp. standing r. holding spear & parazonium.

Possibly Nero's most well known coin is the Port of Ostia sestertius, where he takes credit for a major project that was started by his predecessor Claudius: NERO AE Sestertius (26.56 g.) Lugdunum circa 65 A.D. RIC 441 NERO CLAVD CAESAR AVG GER P M TR P IMP P P Laureate head of Nero left. Rev. PORT AVG Port of Ostia, river Tiber reclining below. Ostia thrived as a city until the fall of the Western Roman Empire, after which it slowly fell into decay. However, since it wasn't destroyed by natural disasters as was Pompeii and Herculaneum, it's a fabulous ruin to visit if you ever get to Italy. Here's a mosaic from one of my favorite areas in Ostia, the merchants' area where services were advertised and described by mosaics: This merchant was evidently selling drayage services to transfer goods from one ship to another, or to shore.

One of my favorite coins in my collection, as well as in all Roman Imperial coins, is the IMPER RECEPT reverse that's been shown previously in this thread as both an aureus and denarius: CLAUDIUS 10 B.C. - 54 A.D. AV Aureus (7.79 g.) Rome 44 - 45 A.D. RIC 25 Obv. TI CLAVD CAESAR AVG P M TR P IIII laureate head r. Rev. Battlemented wall IMPER RECEPT enclosing Praetorian camp, Fides Praetorianorum left. Ex. Metropolitan Museum of Art Collection (Sotheby's, 10 November 1972, lot 35); published in "Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin" 1938 When I first started collecting 12 Caesars coins in 2008, this was one of the first two coins that I acquired, (the other being a Tiberius aureus). I've always believed that its lack of inclusion in Berk's 100 Greatest Ancient Coins is a major omission. The event memorialized on the reverse changed the course of Roman history, if not all subsequent history, in a significant way. Even though my Claudius sestertius doesn't quite seem to fit the criteria of this thread, since its reverse is seemingly a standard Spes advancing type, I show it here for the delicate artistry of illustrating a sheer gown on a walking figure: CLAUDIUS 10 B.C. - 54 A.D. AE Sestertius (29.21 g.) Rome 41 - 54 A.D. RIC 99 TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP Laureate head right. Rev. SPES - AVGVSTA Spes, draped, advancing left, flower in right hand, raising skirt with left, S C in exergue. Ex. Luc Girard. The skill exhibited by the engraver on the reverse of this coin is nothing short of amazing.

In contrast to his predecessor, Caligula's coins are a veritable cornucopia of non-god/goddess reverse types. He is the only one of the 12 Caesars of whom I try to collect more than one type of his sestertii, since I find them so interesting, in some cases bizarrely so. GAIUS (CALIGULA) 37 - 41 A.D. AE Sestertius (28.01 g.) Rome c. 37 - 38 A.D. RIC 32 C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT Laureate head l. Rev. ADLOCVT Gaius, bare headed and togate, standing l. on platform, r. hand extended to five soldiers with shields and parazonia, rearmost pair carrying an aquila; in exergue, COH. Ex. Luc Girard GAIUS (CALIGULA) 37 - 41 A.D. AE Sestertius (28.65 g.) Rome 37 38 A.D. RIC 36 C·CAESAR·AVG·GERMANICVS P·M·TR·POT Pietas, veiled and draped, seated l., holding patera and resting l. arm on small facing figure; in exergue, PIETAS. Rev. DIVO – AVG / S – C Gaius, veiled and togate, sacrificing over garlanded altar; in the background hexastyle temple. GAIUS (CALIGULA) 37 - 41 A.D. AE Sestertius (28.56 g.) Rome c. 37 - 38 A.D. RIC 33 C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT Laureate bust l. Rev. AGRIPPINA – DRVSILLA – IVLIA Sisters standing: Agrippina as Securitas holds cornucopiae; Drusilla as Concordia holds patera and cornucopiae; Julia as Fortuna, holds rudder and cornucopiae. In exergue, S·C. From the Gasvoda collection. Of this last coin I can only wonder: What did Romans think about an emperor celebrating his sisters on the reverse of the empire's most commonly circulated denomination? I do, however, love the engraver's obvious homage to the Three Graces in his posing of Caligula's sisters. This is certainly one of the most iconic sestertii of the 12 Caesars. Although not necessarily as interesting as his sestertii, I've always liked the following coin's reverse for the (undeservedly?) high opinion of his rule that Caligula exhibited with the purely epigraphic reverse: GAIUS (CALIGULA) AV Aureus (7.66 g.) Lugdunum ca. 37 - 38 A.D. RIC -- C CAESAR AVG GERM P M TR POT Laureate head r. Rev. S P Q R / P P / OB C S within oak wreath. From the Biaggi collection. Note that SPQR PP OBCS = Senatus Populusque Romanus, Pater Patriae, Ob Cives Servatos. (The senate and the Roman people to the father of the nation, the savior of the citizens.)

Tiberius time... and it's very difficult to find any reverses of Tiberius that are, well, not boring. My only coin that qualifies for this time period is pretty quirky, though: TIBERIUS AE Dupondius (16.87 g.) Rome 16 - 22 A.D. RIC 38 TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST IMP VIII Laureate head left. Rev. CLEMENTIAE S C Small facing bust, laureate, draped (Tiberius?) within laurel wreath on round shield w/circle of petals, outer circle of palmettos I can't imagine what the Romans would have thought about this coin's reverse.

Of the four coins that I have relating to Octavian/Augustus, three of them have reverses that I believe are distinctive enough to qualify for the spirit of this thread. The first is this denarius, which others have previously shown for the Imperatorial period. RIC lists this as "Italy, uncertain mints, Brundisium and Rome?" OCTAVIAN (AUGUSTUS) AR Denarius (3.84 g.) Brundisium & Rome (?) ca. 29 B.C. RIC 265a Bare head of Octavian right; rev. IMP - CAESAR military trophy, base crossed w/rudder and anchor set on prow right. The second coin is the sestertius with the Altar at Lugdunum (modern day Lyon in France) on the reverse. The emperor Claudius was born in Lugdunum, quite possibly during the year that this coin was struck: AUGUSTUS AE Sestertius (26.20 g.) Lugdunum circa 9 - 14 A.D. RIC231a CAESAR AVGVTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE Laureate head of Augustus r. Rev. ROM ET AVG Altar of Lugdunum. Here's an artist's drawing of what the altar was believed to look like: The height of the columns is estimated at over 40 feet! My third example is one of my favorite reverses. Although ostensibly it's just-another-Roman-goddess-reverse, the actual depiction is so much more than the standard reverse depiction of Roman gods and goddesses: AUGUSTUS AV Aureus (7.90 g.) Lugdunum circa 11 - 10 B.C. RIC 196 AVGVSTVS - DIVI-f Laureate head right. Rev. IMP - XII Diana, wearing polos and long drapery, advancing r., holding bow and taking arrow from quiver. In exergue, SICIL From the Biaggi collection, ex Gilhofer & Ranschburg and Hess 22 May 1935 Diana was the Roman goddess of the hunt, unspoiled nature, and the animals that inhabited it. I've previously described this reverse depiction as the ancient equivalent of a modern day "action figure," and it still strikes me that way. The sense of motion is palpable.

In 2016 I won the coin below at an NAC auction, with my dealer bidding on it for me. That same year, NAC contacted my dealer and notified him that the coin was a forgery, and fully refunded my purchase price plus fees and shipping. It's still difficult for me to believe that the coin isn't genuine.

On 7/26/2020 Savoca sold this coin, which appears to be an exact die match (obverse and reverse) with the coin posted above: Although the Savoca coin appears to be a slightly better example, would it be a counterfeit too? Here's the direct link: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7203274

Here's a quick anecdote about making money by investing in ancient coins: Compare the hammer prices of this coin, sold initially in January 2012 and just recently last month: If you like this profit and have this kind of money to invest, I would note that the S&P 500 rose by a factor of over 3.25 during that period and if you had invested your $3.25M in the S&P instead of this coin, it would be worth $10.57M today -- almost $4M more than the coin. Still want to invest in ancient coins?

This thread is related to an issue that has been in the back of my mind ever since this Forum was created; namely, the varying sizes of images posted by members and the effect is has on reading and scrolling through threads. I'm sure I'm not the only member who finds it extraordinarily tedious to scroll through a thread that has many extremely large images in most of its posts -- images that sometimes take minutes to download and display, increasing the scrolling and viewing time seemingly endlessly. This is especially cumbersome when you want to find the accompanying text/explanation for a post you've seen previously and are trying to find again. I'm wondering if there is a setting for the website that could scale every image posted by any member to a uniformly small or medium size that is displayed initially in the post. Subsequently, that smaller image could be clicked on if the viewer wanted to see a larger image of the coin. I'd also suggest reducing the number of posts required to start a new page from the current 25 to, say 15, so that searching for a previously read post isn't as time-consuming as it is now. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

I'm in agreement with DonnaML on this. This issue seems to boil down to a reasonable, functional definition of "genuine." For me it's pretty simple: Just because a piece of metal (flan) is 2000 years old doesn't make it genuine. Being able to say "This was once an ancient coin but it's been re-engraved in modern times" isn't sufficient to tell someone "This IS an ancient coin" rather than "This WAS an ancient coin." Features that have been added, enhanced, or altered by tooling mean the coin isn't fully genuine. If I look at an ancient coin and I know that its current condition is better than its condition when it ceased circulating in ancient times, then it's not collectible for me.

I disagree with this statement 100% -- at least by my definition of tooling. At some point in their lifetime, all ancient coins ceased circulating and were stored, abandoned, lost, forgotten, etc. When this happened, the coin exhibited some specific state of wear: it might have had only circulation wear, it may have had scratches, gouges, nicks, cuts, etc. It is unlikely that it had surface deposits and pitting (especially gold coins) caused by chemical processes. AEs, though, are especially susceptible to surface adhesions and corrosion that attack the coin after it ceases circulating. By my definition, cleaning and reasonably restoring a bronze coin to its state and condition when it ceased circulating is not tooling. This includes reasonable removal of surface adhesions -- i.e., smoothing -- that do not specifically enhance the devices or legends. In some cases there may be gray areas as to whether the smoothing enhanced the coin's devices and legends, and this is open to interpretation for that specific coin. There are also cases of overly smoothed fields that just look artificial even though the smoothing simply removed adhesions and lessened pits that were not present on the coin when it ceased circulating. For these coins it's a judgment call as to whether a collector will accept that coin's condition as being authentic. When in doubt, engage the services of an expert who can examine the coin in-hand.

Interestingly, there were two of Ancient Joe's coin type in the NAC auction today. One hammered for CHF 36,000 and the other one hammered for CHF 240,000. Here they are (the top one was the CHF 240,000 hammer price): Although there is a clear visual difference between the two coins even in the pictures alone, I was a little puzzled by the CHF 204,000 difference in hammer price until I read the detailed description of each. However, there is a part of me that wonders if the consignor of the second coin did himself/herself a disservice by having it slabbed, and ending up with a "Surface 2/5" rating. Note that NAC still grades this as "... otherwise good extremely fine."

This corresponds correctly with the new RIC II.3. The weight and size are within parameters for this coin. Here's a coin that sold at auction within the last year, in approximately the same condition, for around $60 including buyer's fee but not including shipping: The legends are more readable on the auction coin which is a plus for that coin. I see no reason to think the coin you posted isn't authentic, as long as the asking price is within reason (maybe $30 - $60) plus shipping. If it's really cheap, I would be more cautious.