idesofmarch01

Wow!  These are two extraordinarily impressive coins!  

The high quality artistry of the portraits is especially reminiscent of Hadrian's best imperial portraits and something I would not have expected in a provincial coin.  Just as an example, I created a side-by-side image of my Aegyptos sestertius with the first (Year 10) coin:

Congratulations on your acquisitions!

10 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

A more apt translation to English would be: 'reworked fields'.   

Even if this translation is accurate, it's the devices that have been reworked, not the fields.

Note that the NAC description uses "surface" and not "fields" or "devices."  I assume that they used this much more general term to avoid passing judgment about the areas that may have been tooled.

Also, given the difficulties of translation, I think that a scrupulously honest dealer or auction house would include the universally used English word "tooled" rather than a Spanish phrase that can be loosely translated in a number of different ways.

This coin was auctioned at NAC 52 in 2009:

The description notes "... traces of tooling..." -- an understatement, in my opinion -- but at least NAC noted this.  Aureo Calico failed to note this, which is at best negligent and more likely, purposely deceptive.  I would not bid on any of their coins.

Your "consolation prize" Nero aureus is more likely a first place than runner-up.  Congratulations.

I have the denarius equivalent of your aureus as part of my "mint set" of Nero.

36 minutes ago, CPK said:

I found one for you! 😜

 

Wow!  Pretty sure this is the same coin as the one that hammered (below) for around $7,200 INCLUDING buyer's fee:

Looks as if it's been repatinated.  Anybody here want to pay a $64,000 premium for this coin?

Well, since you asked...

My one and only coin was, well, the #1 auction coin:

Yet another work of abstract art by the Celts, and I couldn't resist.  The "stylized" portrait of Apollo on the obverse is the feature that really enticed me, especially since most other examples of this fairly common coin don't contain the entire head are are very hard to visualize.

Plus the provenance is long and impressive:

This coin published online at Portable Antiquities Scheme: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/707502;
From a private Californian collection;
Ex Chris Rudd Ltd, Auction 160, 13 August 2018, lot 21;
Found in Burwell, Lincolnshire, 7 February 2015.

Yes, that's right, its provenance dates all the way back to 2015!  Those were the days!  

Does anyone have a shorter known provenance on an ancient coin?

Let me preface my post by writing that I appreciate the specificity of every poster's reasoning regarding their opinion on whether or not this coin is tooled.  All too often coins are presented as "tooled" or "not tooled" with no supporting illustrations or information.  I think it's always preferable to provide illustrations and the reasoning behind these opinions.

12 hours ago, Etcherdude said:

@singig that trough under the chin sure looks like it was dug into the metal to me.

In addition to the region under the chin, I see a distinct trough/rut running vertically, defining the neck (left picture):

To my eye, the bottom (deepest part) of the trough appears to be below the nominal surface of the surrounding field.  I assume that this trough couldn't be created by a die strike.

In order to test my observation and assumption, I compared this area to the similar Trajan sestertii included in the picture (right picture), as well as high-resolution pictures of my portrait sestertii (not shown here), and didn't observe anything resembling a trough next to the outline of the portraits.

Notice also in the left picture that the device immediately to the right of the lower part of the neck (circled in red) also appears to be very sharply defined with a possible rut/trough on either side of it.

So it still appears to me that this trough, as well as the one under the chin mentioned by Etcherdude, were somehow created by a process other than the original strike.  For now, my only explanation is that a small tool was used to etch this rut in order to better define the portrait.

11 hours ago, dougsmit said:

I see no tooling but ample proof that lighting angles can make the same coin look different.

While manipulation of the light source can affect the sharpness of this and other edge shadows in a photograph, it wouldn't be possible to create an equally sharp edge shadow in the right picture's neck since there simply isn't any edge to be sharpened by the light source

2 hours ago, singig said:

...below I compared the OP coin with a similar one in the same degree of wear.

Thanks for posting this image.  Below I have circled three similar areas in each coin to compare each area's edges (there are other areas as well):

Clearly, in the left coin, the edges are much sharper than in the right coin, even though both coins seem to exhibit similar amounts of wear on the devices and fields.  I can't think of any natural wear process that would leave the edges sharp on one coin but rounded and smooth on another coin.  Unless an expert can explain how this could happen, my tentative conclusion is that the edges were somehow artificially enhanced.

Possibly it could be argued that when the coin was cleaned, the fields near the edges in the left coin were cleaned a bit over-zealously near the outlines of the bust, resulting in the sharp edges.  But even if this were the case, I would think that such cleaning is vanishingly close to tooling.

I am open to explanations that would explain the sharp edges -- I just can't think of any myself.

4 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

My guess (only a guess) is that the central devices are often so highly struck originally on Trajan's big AEs that even after extensive wear they maintain a strong outline, even when most of the legend is worn away.

Just to be clear, the issue I'm pointing out is not sharp edges per se, but rather how some edges can remain sharp while similarly struck edges are rounded, despite the very high likelihood that the wear due to circulation was symmetrical in terms of both direction and frequency.  I'm always bewildered by how these sharp edges seem to be around the features of the obverse portrait, or the reverse devices that are important to the coin's value.

5 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

I had an eye on the Mercury/Prow R.R. Sextans that the seller was also offering.  It went for more than I was willing to spend.

Something about the 'style' of the O.P.'s coin didn't/doesn't sit right for me.  I get a 'Paduan' vibe from it.  Since I trust my gut, I decided to not give it further interest.

That stated, my 'Spidey-Sense' is not infallible.  If the only loss is potentially missing out on a coin I'm unsure about; I don't fret too much about it.

What I don't like is the style of the hair.  It's 'brain-like' structure(for lack of a better descriptor) looks more akin to what one would see on a Julio-Claudian Sestertius than an Adoptive Emperors Sestertius.  Could it by a sign of 'tooling' on a genuine coin?  I dunno.

The small (circular)moon craters on the reverse also lend me to take pause.  They look like popped air-bubbles.

This is RIC 706j.  Notice the the 'thicker locks' hairstyle which is what I am more accustomed to expecting on Hadrian portraits.

 

I'm certainly far from being expert enough to be able to condemn or confirm the OP coin's authenticity, I'm simply expressing the concerns that I had in leading my decision to pass on any further interest for it.

This post mirrors my thoughts about the OP coin as well.  I collect Hadrian travel series, and I have yet to see a bust on any of his denominations where the hair looks similar to the OP coin.  My knowledge isn't exhaustive, of course, but this coin's obverse doesn't inspire confidence about its authenticity.

3 hours ago, curtislclay said:

A rather worn specimen, but I see no signs of tooling.

My issue with this coin would be the following: how is it possible that normal, symmetrical wear (due to circulation) smoothed the left edges of the bust, yet the right edges around the mouth, lips, and chin are exceedingly sharp?  Also, to my eye it appears that the entire bust has a bit of a channel re-engraved around it to make the portrait stand out.

After about 30 minutes of searching my copy of RIC II.3, I have been completely unable to locate a sestertius of this type in any of the plates.  The problem is that none of the sestertii's obverse busts exhibit the feature I've circle below:

The closest I can find is actually a dupondius (RIC 1303) that MIGHT have this feature on the front bust but the plate is too dark and not detailed enough to confirm this, although the written description is accurate: "... laureate, draped bust viewed from back or side... Bare heads noted with +; left facing with /L (dp no longer radiate)."  However, at 23 g., the OP coin seems too heavy to be a dupondius although it would be quite light for a sestertius.

7 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

The etiquette of discussing upcoming auctions is an interesting question. I can understand someone getting upset if a coin they wanted was discussed. That would cost them money. I wouldn't like it. But it isn't about etiquette. Who decided that person should be protected, and everyone else shouldn't be alerted to a coin they might want? Or the seller should miss out on interested buyers?

I'm of two minds on this topic.  On the one hand, I'd love to openly discuss certain coins at upcoming auctions, especially topics such as whether a high quality coin is underestimated, its potential hammer price, who the bidders might be, etc.  

But this applies solely to those coins on which I won't be bidding.  So on the other hand, if I had even a mild interest in a coin, I'd not want a lot of public discussion prior to the auction because my thinking is that this would only increase interest and drive up the ultimate hammer price.

Not sure there's a happy medium here.

4 minutes ago, Curtis JJ said:

In my case, I didn't want to share it before the auction house had a chance to take it down, thus insulting or unnecessarily embarrassing any staff or burdening them with incoming communications warning them of the fake.

As I had posted earlier, I fully agree that if there is sufficient time prior to an auction, I would certainly extend the courtesy of contacting the auction house with my suspicions about a forgery rather than immediately posting it on a public website.  But lacking a timely reply, I would likely err on the side of the collector/bidder rather than the auction house and post my supported opinion.

7 minutes ago, Curtis JJ said:

I've also seen people on coin forums get very riled up over someone mentioning a coin while bidding is still open

Personally, I tend to agree with this point of etiquette and wouldn't usually initiate an online discussion about an upcoming auction coin, but it wouldn't apply to a coin that I can reasonably demonstrate is highly likely to be a forgery.

3 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I would think you're on shakier legal ground posting an image that isn't yours than highlighting a possible fake with evidence. Technically, just posting the coin reveals who they are anyway. Either way, they would have to sue you, which is unlikely if it is fake.

Also, I would think the "fair use" clause of the copyright law would apply to a non-commercial one-time use of the coin's image.

9 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

I am not sure what the protocol is with regards to posting an upcoming fake in an auction house and as such I will avoid naming them here.

Perhaps DonnaML could give a more authoritative legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer) but I seriously doubt it would violate any libel laws to write something along the lines of "I believe the Septimius Severus denarius in [insert auction house name here]'s upcoming [insert auction description here] auction matches known forgeries.  Here's my evidence for my opinion [insert supporting evidence here]."

Personally, I think it's a bit of a disservice not to mention the auction and auction house even though a little bit of research can usually uncover the implied seller.  If I saw such a coin myself, I wouldn't hesitate to name the auction house using language similar to what I wrote above, as well as contacting the auction house directly at the same time.

If the auction were far enough in the future, I'd first contact the auction house before posting on a website but failing to get a timely response from the auction house, I'd go ahead and make the post mentioning the coin and the auction.

The first century AD is one of the most historically interesting periods in Rome's history.  Civil war, pestilence, fire, earthquakes, assassinations, the Colosseum -- and this was the beginning of the Pax Romana!  Every emperor has at least some uniquely interesting characteristics, and even the worst ones seem to have made a notable contribution to Rome's development.

So many ancient coin collectors focus their efforts on this period that, not surprisingly, the demand for coins of this era (especially portrait coins) constantly exceeds supply.  Prices reflect this, but don't let this dissuade you from pursuing this collection.  Rather, keep in mind a number of principles when you're evaluating a purchase and your enjoyment of this hobby is likely to grow as you pursue each individual coin.

First, keep learning by doing your research using resources such as auctions (ACSEARCH, CNG's archives) and dealers (VCOINS, et al.) so that you become familiar with what's available, reasonable pricing, etc.  I personally agree that without sufficient expertise, eBay is full of landmines and you're likely to step on more than a few if you try to find bargains on your own there.

Second, most collectors here will tell you that you should buy only coins that truly appeal to you in some way -- visually, historically, artistically, etc. -- rather than just as a placeholder in your collection.  If you buy coins in the latter category, you'll most likely end up unhappy with the coins at some time in the future.

Next, while it's satisfying to complete your goal of collecting all 12 Caesars, acquiring them slowly and thoughtfully means you'll probably be more satisfied with a partial collection of coins, all of which you cherish and enjoy handling, than quickly assembling a complete collection of coins, some of which evoke the reaction "Hmm, what was I thinking when I bought that one?"  Don't be in a rush.  You'll discover that the chase can be as much fun as the acquisition.

Feel free to ask for general advice in the forums and threads here.  However, if you're looking at a specific coin, use a private message to solicit feedback from a member who seems to collect in the same area or seems otherwise knowledgeable.

Finally, while it's good to set a per-coin budget, be aware that your budget might change -- most likely grow -- over time if you aren't in a rush to complete your collection.  So evaluate each potential coin thoroughly and weigh all the positives and negatives, especially when you find a more expensive coin that seems to "call" to you.  You'll usually end up making the right decision.

I'm a little surprised that the Coinweek cast didn't include a picture of the coin on which the overstrike was hammered.  It would have been immensely helpful in discussing overstrikes if, in addition to the struck coin, a separate picture of the underlying coin was also included, oriented in the same angular position as the coin being discussed.

I'm probably not alone here in not having sufficient range of ancient coin knowledge to "see" the underlying coin and its features, even for those coins with which I'm familiar.  So especially when the underlying coin is a type I've never seen, there is little or no possibility that I'll be able to see those underlying features.

Doing this also might draw a lot more interest in the topic of overstrikes in general. 

I think the common element in this thread is twofold: first, sestertii are just fun to handle -- one can hold them and imagine how they were the denomination of reckoning in ancient Rome.  Roman costs were always estimated in sestertii, rather than denarii or aurei.  Second, the larger flan allows for better artistry -- both portraits and especially reverses where the scenes are typically more complex than other denominations.

Note that all of the sestertii in this thread, regardless of their condition, are well centered and exhibit at least good-quality portraits and engraving.  Every one is truly an appealing ancient AE.

My own collection of the 12 Caesars is complete to the extent that Julius Caesar and Otho aren't available in this denomination.  Plus, I like the artistry of Caligula's sestertii so much that I expanded to three of his issues and hope to add the SPQR type sometime in the future.

1 hour ago, Octavius said:

 Got it from a dealer - Kirk Davis - many years ago. He has always had very nice coins to offer. Here is another ADLOCVTIO of Nero - maybe not as nice as the first, but pretty nice , natural surfaces. I also got his one many years ago, I believe from CNG.

Another scarcer issue of Nero was his platform sestertius (CONIVGARIVM). This was also from CNG years ago. (Gee, it's starting to feel like everything was "years ago").

I used to try and specialize in Nero at one time.

 

My previous Caligula SPQR was from a Rauch auction ; my Caligula /Adlocutio was from Tom Cederland, (I miss him); The Titus was either from Harlan and Berk or CNG - can't remember offhand.

Thanks for the info.  All your coins are from excellent sources, and are correspondingly outstanding coins.  Plus, you can trust their authenticity and further feel comfortable that they're not tooled, which is probably the most important aspect when acquiring Roman AEs.

13 hours ago, Octavius said:

Some very attractive sestertii!

In particular, the Nero AD LOCVT is quite a find!  Did you acquire it via auction, dealer, or private sale?

3 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

Unless you don’t like the coin, but you think it is severely underpriced item and you can have an arbitrage opportunity - you can confidently resell with a high enough margin (30%+ profit)

If you're a part-time or full-time ancient coin dealer, this might be a consideration.  But if you're simply a collector of ancient coins, buying a coin you really don't want for your collection simply ties up your capital for the period during which you're trying to sell the coin at a profit, and may cause you to miss opportunities for acquiring coins that you want.  Especially if you're inexperienced at reselling ancient coins, the total risk and hassle of doing so probably far outweighs the potential profit.

1 hour ago, Prieure de Sion said:

And in the end I was annoyed that I didn't wait for a better opportunity after all. I didn't like looking at them. 

It's my belief that this observation accurately reflects most (but not necessarily all) ancient coin collectors.  While it's not necessary that your coins be EF, VF, or any particular condition, ultimately you want coins in your collection that you like to look at, and have eye appeal for you.  If the coin you're considering doesn't have this, it won't matter how rare, or what it costs; you'll eventually end up wishing you had waited for a different example of that coin.

Pay attention to your inner voice!

18 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

But look at the top of his head! It's shaped very differently from yours.

I think that might be more due to the fact that the obverse is slightly rotated clockwise; here's a side-by-side comparison with the "weird" portrait rotated into a more normal orientation:

Other than the right image's laurel wreath jutting above Hadrian's hairline, they look relatively similar to me.

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Speaking of weird portraits, does this Hadrian portrait on a sestertius in an upcoming auction (see https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=5951&lot=91 ) just have an oddly shaped head, and an oddly shaped beard (if there's one at all), or do people think it's been tooled?

I think the odd-looking portrait is a result of Hadrian's beard having been mostly worn off to the point that you can't tell the difference between "worn beard" and "cheek skin."  His apparently jowly chin would normally be textured beard too, but it has been worn smooth and the subsequent smoothing makes it appear to be skin rather than beard.  This is a case where less obverse smoothing might have resulted in a more natural-looking portrait.  In my example it's clear on the obverse where the beard ends and cheek/neck begins:

The reverse is indeed extremely well defined but I don't see any really sharp lines and delineations that would make me think "obvious tooling."  A more expert examination and opinion would be the next step.