idesofmarch01

This will seem heretical, but... I don't think patinas add any appeal or value to ancient silver and bronze coins. Although I don't dislike patinas, neither do I really like them and I never understand why collectors value patinas as part of coins. A little more elucidation: when an ancient silver or bronze coin was in circulation, it wouldn't have developed a patina (other than a mild one similar to what older collectors here remember on U.S. copper pennies and silver dimes and half dollars). A "mint state" ancient coin would have had clean surfaces and luster. After it ceased circulating the coin would have developed a patina from oxidation (oxygen) and chemical reaction with sulfur in the air. So what? This patina actually obscures the original mint beauty of the coin (although in the case of bronze coins it is true that the greenish copper sulfate patina eventually protects the surface of the coin). Patinas just leave me cold.

This is an excellent presentation and a wonderful collection of Republic coins. I especially appreciate the diversity of reverses as well as the overall quality of the coins you've chosen. A collection like this is much more interesting than seeing the usual auction catalog of Republic coins, and almost entices me to extend my collecting range back to this era!

So, now we know how the phrase "head cheese" originated when describing important or self-important individuals!

From Wikipedia: ------------------------ Bronze disease is an irreversible and nearly inexorable corrosion process that occurs when chlorides come into contact with bronze or other copper-bearing alloys.[1] It can occur as both a dark green coating, or as a much lighter whitish fuzzy or furry green coating.[1] Initially, copper is oxidized to the cuprous ion:[4] (1) Cu → Cu+ + e− The cuprous ion reacts with the chloride ion to form the insoluble white colored salt cuprous chloride: (2) Cu+ + Cl− → CuCl The cuprous chloride reacts with atmospheric moisture and oxygen to form a green cupric chloride/cupric hydroxide compound and hydrochloric acid: (3) 4 CuCl + 4 H2O + O2 → CuCl2·3 Cu(OH)2 + 2 HCl The remaining copper is oxidised by air to the cuprous ion: (4) Cu → Cu+ + e− The cuprous ion reacts with the chloride ion in the hydrochloric acid to form the insoluble white colored salt cuprous chloride: (5) Cu+ + Cl− → CuCl The reaction then repeats from equation (3). It is the presence of two different white and green salts that lead to the fuzzy green appearance.[4] Initial treatment can involve placing the object in a desiccating environment.[4] Deprived of water, the reaction cannot continue. However, re-exposure of the object to even atmospheric water can restart the process. ------------------------- I.e., bronze disease is an almost self-perpetuating chemical reaction that will continue unless the green cupric chloride is completely removed from the coin (thus eliminating the chlorine atom that enables the reaction) OR the coin is kept in an environment completely free of contact with water molecules. You might attempt to do the latter by placing a desiccant alongside the coin in storage, but inevitably some water molecules will find their way to the remnants of the green cupric chloride and continue the disease process. Distilled water is irrelevant in this reaction. This means that the ONLY way to ensure that the bronze disease stops is by eliminating 100% of the green cupric chloride. For more information on ways to do this, you should refer to the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_disease

I, too, am bewildered that this particular coin, with the off-center elephant lacking a full trunk on the flan, can possibly be graded "NGC MS * 5/5 - 5/5" There are literally hundreds of these denarii listed on ACSEARCH with the full trunk on the flan and better centered... and for considerably less money. Would anyone other than an unknowledgeable purchaser prefer a coin with -- excuse the pun -- a truncated feature on the obverse?

Wow! The obverse flow marks make this look like "Nerva having a bad hair day."

My personal impression is that the NAC - Shanna Schmidt association is primarily to benefit U.S. collectors who win coins at NAC's Swiss auctions. Those coins will be shipped from NAC Switzerland to NAC Chicago (Schmidt), and then directly to the buyer, thus avoiding the burden of the buyer having to arrange for overseas shipping and customs clearance.

I would also point out that "NAC and Shanna Schmidt [have] join[ed] forces to found NAC USA" (from a recent website announcement).

It appears that my final fantasy bid on item #5 won with a hammer price of $4,700. So my total is $59,200 in my five successful bids for a 59.2% efficiency. How did everyone else fare?

My favorite Titus is his self-confident look on this denarius: 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.

I decided it would be interesting to calculate the inflation-adjusted amount, in U.S. dollars, of the original purchase price for each of these coins, and compare those purchases prices to the Spink hammer prices for each of them. To do this, for those coins purchased in CHF, I started by calculating the equivalent "Purch. USD" from the CHF/USD exchange rate from the table here: https://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/USDpages.pdf I then calculated the inflation-adjusted purchase amount in USD at the end of 2022 ("Today USD") using a chart and formula that I created from this table of U.S. inflation rates: https://www.multpl.com/inflation/table/by-year Finally, I subtracted the inflation-adjusted purchase price from the Spink hammer price to get the gain or loss on each coin. Here's the result: While the results are all over the board, very few of these coins kept up with or exceeded inflation. Thoughts?

I think you have this reversed. In 1970 it took around 4.4 CHF to buy one U.S. dollar.

Your post piqued my interest, so I randomly chose coin #2 and used ACSEARCH to find "caria rhodes didrachm." The search turned up 1,894 hits (some of which will be duplicates, of course) and scrolling down the list, my impression is that for coins in approximately the same condition as the one in this auction, the current prices were modest: $150 - $500 or so. (Disclaimer: I have zero expertise in these types of coins so maybe there are distinguishing attributes that make some worth more or less than others, and I wouldn't be able to discern these.) So the hammer price seems to be in line with today's market for this coin. Possibly many of this particular type have been found in the intervening 50 years, keeping the prices low. It may be that this particular type of coin is considered less interesting to current collectors than it was to old collectors. Another, less benign reason might be that these were modest quality coins when acquired 50+ years ago, and they remain modest quality coins in today's market. If he/she bought them from a dealer, he/she would have paid the normal dealer markup which can take years or even decades to catch up to current auction prices. Even in the short period I've been collecting ancient coins, it's been my observation that commonly available, middle quality coins rarely, if ever, benefit predictably from the effects of inflation or appreciation while coins in visibly better condition than, say, 90% of the same type can appreciate astronomically. I'm curious what other collectors with expertise in these coins think about this topic.

For me, Vespasian has always been the emperor of many faces: the severe portrait, the regal portrait, the friendly portrait, and the jowly old man portrait, as illustrated successively below:

I keep my information on my coins in an Excel spreadsheet too, but my collection is small (fewer than 70 coins currently) and if I had a collection that numbered in the hundreds or thousands, I'd be inclined to use database software rather than a spreadsheet. Some specific suggestions: 1. Convert the prices you paid for the coins (including all fees, shipping, insurance, etc.) to one currency -- either dollars or Euros -- valued at the time you purchased the coin. It's the only way you can total the value of your coins. I doubt that the original currency matters anyway, and you can always look it up or even include an additional column to record the original currency. 2. Excel IS cumbersome to include pictures, but I find it a very valuable inclusion and even if you move things around, it's worth the extra effort to reposition the pictures. Here's a section of my spreadsheet to illustrate: I simply drag a picture of the coin into the open spreadsheet and size it using the handles around the image. While this will increase the size of your spreadsheet, with most computer storage devices in the multi-gigabyte category, your spreadsheet is unlikely ever to be larger than your storage device can handle. 3. The more specific your columns are, the more precisely you can locate and sort your data, but the more effort it will be to enter each coin. For example, you could have separate columns for weight and maximum dimension, if you think searching or sorting on that information will be useful in the future. My advice here is to keep it up-to-date as soon as you get a new coin or sell an old coin, otherwise it's easy to neglect it until it becomes a real chore.

For Galba, the arrogant tightwad is his classic appearance: GALBA 68 - 69 A.D. AE Sestertius (28.10 g.) Rome late summer 68 AD RIC 309 IMP SER SVLP GALBA - CAESAR AVG TR P Laureate and draped bust r. Rev. LIBERTAS - PUBLICA Libertas standing l., holding pileus and long scepter; S - C in field As for Otho, any coin that illustrates his garish toupee: OTHO Jan. - Apr. 69 A.D. AR Denarius (3.54 g.) Rome 69 A.D. RIC 4 Obv. Bare head of Otho r. Rev. PAX ORBIS TERRARVM Pax standing left, holding branch and long caduceus Finally, Vitellius is a bit of an enigma to me -- he never quite looks like an emperor. In this coin, he just looks like your typical man-in-the-street, maybe even a little bit bewildered: VITELLIUS 69 A.D. AV Aureus (7.33 g.) Rome Apr. - Dec. 69 A.D. RIC 80 A VITELLIVS GERMAN IMP TR P laureate head r. Rev. LIBERTAS RESTITVTA Libertas standing facing, head r., holding pileus in r. hand and long rod in left

Wow. Hit that one right on the nose. Good bid! It's starting to look as if 60%+ is a pretty good result.

My results so far: 1. Thasos AR stater, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 84. Max bid $15,000. WON. Hammer $3,000. 2. Crete, Knossos AR stater, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 177. Max Bid $15,000. WON. Hammer $13,000. 3. Claudius AE sestertius, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 698. Max Bid $15,000. WON. Hammer $8,500. 4. Hadrian AV aureus, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 762. Max Bid $40,000. WON. Hammer $30,000. 5. Caligula AE sestertius, Heritage 3106, lot 33240. Max bid $15,000 Total so far is $54,500 so my maximum possible score is 69.5%. My overestimate on item #1 wasted a lot of my fantasy budget.

So, of your $100,000 in fantasy funds, you successfully bid on coins that hammered for $61,500. Your percentage is 61.5%, which seems pretty good so far.

My personal Nero favorite will always be the fat-neck, scruffy beard portrait: NERO 54 - 68 A.D. AV Aureus (7.33 g.) Rome 64 - 65 A.D. RIC 54 Obv. NERO CAESAR - AVGVSTVS Laureate head r. Rev. Roma seated l. on cuirass, holding Victory in r. hand and parazonium in l.; in exergue, ROMA HIs coins, even the smaller ones, can be extraordinarily artistic, but I've always wondered why he didn't force the engravers to make his portraits a bit more attractive.

Yep, I'm no expert in Greek coins so without the guidance of a knowledgeable dealer I missed this one badly.

For me, the iconic Claudius portrait is what I describe as the "weak chin" portrait. While it's sometimes not considered as artistic as other Claudius portraits with a strong jawline, I suspect it's more true-to-life than his "this is what an emperor of Rome should look like" portraits. CLAUDIUS 41 - 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

Great writeup -- thanks for starting us out! One of the things I anticipated about this fantasy game is what you've already observed -- that maybe $100K doesn't go as far as you think it would! I'll post my list now, too, since I don't anticipate any more changes to my max bids. 1. Thasos AR stater, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 84. Max bid $15,000 2. Crete, Knossos AR stater, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 177. Max Bid $15,000 3. Claudius AE sestertius, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 698. Max Bid $15,000 4. Hadrian AV aureus, CNG/Triton XXVI, lot 762. Max Bid $40,000 5. Caligula AE sestertius, Heritage 3106, lot 33240. Max bid $15,000 Good luck everyone!

Since it's only a fantasy game, my thought was the following: On Monday I will post my fantasy bids to this thread (Auction, Lot# & Short Description, Max bid). When all of my fantasy bids have won or lost, I will make a second post showing my wins and losses, and calculate the percentage of my $100K budget that I successfully bid. I think all participants can follow this procedure including their final calculation. Sound OK?

One of the most storied coins struck during the first century is, I think, the Claudius IMPER RECEPT denarius and aureus: CLAUDIUS 41 - 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" 1938The history memorialized in this coin is impressive; I quote from Heritage's description:"Claudius owed his elevation to the Praetorian Guard and was not ashamed to promote this fact on his coinage. The reverse of this interesting aureus type depicts the Praetorian camp and the legend "IMPER RECEPT" -- "The Emperor Received," a direct reference to the chaotic aftermath of Caligula's assassination in January of AD 41, when a platoon of Praetorians found Claudius hiding in the imperial palace and quickly hustled him behind the walls of the fortress. He obliged them with a donative of 3,750 silver denarii per head, nearly quadruple the previous highest amount (1,000, by Tiberius). The Praetorians remained fiercely loyal throughout his reign and, faced with this reality, the Senate was loath to challenge him."It is simply staggering to imagine a Roman Emperor being appointed by a small group of Praetorian Guards. Every time I view this coin I'm reminded of the (certainly fictional) line from I, Claudius, when Claudius was arguing to the Senate the reasons for why he should be appointed Emperor:"As for being half-witted: well, what can I say, except that I have survived to middle age with half my wits, while thousands have died with all of theirs intact. Evidently, quality of wits is more important than quantity."