Rare vs beautiful

[kirispupis]

Hello everyone! I was just wondering, as I debate which coins to write up and which bronzes to include in my Top 10 Bronzes list (roughly 170 of my 190 coins purchased this year were bronzes), which do you find more interesting? Coins that are extremely rare, or coins that are beautiful?

Here are some examples.

The below coin is ugly. However, it may be my rarest coin. Per this paper, there are only twelve specimens known from Leon. Of those, ten are in the collection of the National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia. Only one copy is listed in the paper of this denomination, so this coin is either unique or is one of two known. Mine is the only recorded sale of Leon in acsearch.

Kings of Paeonia, Leon
Æ 13mm 1.91g, 6h 278-250 BCE
Wreathed head of Dionysos(?) to right / Head of lion to left; ΛEΩN to left, sword to right.
Cf. AMNG III/11, p. 206
Ex Roma 2017
Ex Roma 2022

 

The below coin is one of my favorite bronzes, and is perhaps my most beautiful bronze, but it's not rare by any means. Pretty much every auction has them - usually more than one. Of course, due to their imagery they still sell well.

Kimmerian Bosporos, Pantikapaion
Æ 7.23g, 20mm, 11h.
Circa 325-310 BCE
Head of bearded Satyr to right / Π-Α-Ν around forepart of griffin to left; sturgeon to left below
MacDonald 69; SNG BM Black Sea 869-71; SNG Stancomb 542; HGC 7, 113
Ex Roma

 

This may be my only bronze that is both rare and beautiful. being one of four coins of Ziailas listed on acsearch and is probably the best of type.

Kings of Bithynia. Ziailas, circa 250-230 BCE
AE 18 mm, 4.89 g, 1 h
Diademed head of Ziailas to right. Rev. BAΣIΛE[ΩΣ] / ZIAHΛA Tropy of arms. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage, 416. SNG von Aulock 243
Ex Obolos October 2020
Ex Leu

[ewomack]

This might be a rare attitude itself, but rarity has never really done much for me, at least compared with aesthetic appeal. I prefer coins that are enjoyable to look at, whether rare or not. But my tastes might not gel with others. I find this Phocas follis absolutely beautiful, but partially because it's also ugly.

I really found this coin beautiful when I first saw it, but again I may have bizarre standards.

As for rare and beautiful, I try not to spend too much money on coins, so I would probably avoid expensive rare and beautiful coins, overall. In short, I prefer beauty to rarity. A very worn rare coin doesn't really do much for me.

[Amarmur]

Beautiful coins all day. Even a common 3rd century bronze in a high grade is something noteworthy and an awe to behold. A rare historically interesting coin (Julius Caesar coin for example) in the worst imaginable shape is historically interesting but not something you would look at and admire but something you would just keep as a placeholder or just for the sake of owning it.

[Simon]

Neither are rare but the condition on both makes them beautiful . It is difficult to find trachea nice struck as these. The reason it took 2 strikes to make the coins. These are both Manuel I Comnenus SBCV-1968

[DonnaML]

I'll take beautiful any day. As the saying  goes, there's nothing more common than a rare ancient coin. Except perhaps an ugly one!

[Roman Collector]

If your collection were destroyed by some disaster, it's the loss of the rare coins you'd regret, not the beautiful ones, because you know they are irreplaceable.

[Nvb]

4 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

If your collection were destroyed by some disaster, it's the loss of the rare coins you'd regret, not the beautiful ones, because you know they are irreplaceable.

Well I’m not sure I agree.. especially with ancients a stunning FDC specimen with fine style dies and gorgeous tone can be a rarity even if the general type (catalog reference) is common. Some coins are so unusually beautiful/ full of character for the type they’d be near impossible to replace.

Rare beauty is just another type of rarity

Edited December 7, 2022 by Nvb

[Severus Alexander]

I love a mix of rarity and beauty in a top 10 list, but if forced to, I'd vote for rarity... but only in combination with historically or numismatically interesting. (Which is what you meant, I think.)  As @DonnaML notes, rarity by itself isn't unusual. But throw in that it's one of only a handful of a particular king (like your OP coin), or that it's connected with an important historical event, or that it's got a surprisingly high Pb content due to economic emergency, or... then I perk up and take notice!  Flyspecking, or a rare RIC number or whatever... that's kinda meh. Though I don't begrudge a specialist getting excited about these things. 😄

Here's an ugly rarity that might appeal to you:

Airai, Ionia AE12. This poor little Athenian colony/partisan port was obliterated in 370 BCE by Termessos.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Limes]

I cant give a straight answer to the posed question. I enjoy watching 'beautiful' coins (even though what is beautiful is different to many). Then there are beautiful rarities, and beautiful 'common' coins, and I enjoy looking at both. Then there are rarities that are so rare, that beauty is not an option. I also enjoy watching those. 

For me, from the perspective of a collector, it's both. Im very pleased to snatch a rarity in lesser quality, and likely will choose that over a more 'common' coin in better quality. And since my funds are limited, I must choose all the time. My collection is my collection because I collect the coins I like. 

From your perspective, and the question which coins you should add in your top list, why would you ask our opinion first? Would you change preferences if the outcome of your poll is beauty over rarity, or the other way? I think you should choose yourself; which coins do you like best, either be it beauty or rare. After all, it's your collection and these are your coins. 

By the way, 190 coins is a huge haul! Perhaps you should consider a top 100 😉

[ambr0zie]

The answer posted by @Limes is fully in line with my views also. A coin I like might be a rare one, a beautiful one or even a common one that is not in the best condition.
Like most of us, my funds are limited. And even if I admire and from time to time acquire beautiful coins (although this term is subjective) - I sometimes pass coins in great condition. This is not a major criteria for me - I want my coins to have eye appeal for me. What I collect are coins that are important for my collecting style (connected to historic events/places/people/interesting design) and - very important - that I can afford.

Something rare that I will probably not get soon - an Otho denarius. I don't want one that is too ugly for me to like (especially since they're not cheap). I would afford one in decent condition but this would mean I spend the budget for 20 of my usual coins. Why should I do this since 1. Otho is not an emperor I am very interested in 2. I do not have a main target to complete a 12 Caesars set.

From the numismatic value and possible resell value (irrelevant for me as I do not intend to sell my coins too soon) then probably an Otho denarius in a decent condition is better than 20 common denarii. I don't care. I strongly prefer 10-20 denarii of Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Pius for example. As long as I like them.

And for places in top 10 - I think the coins should be chosen according to the satisfaction they provide to the owner. And the votes will be granted according to what an external person likes, and this can be very different. In the 2 threads I posted, one for Greek/Provincial coins and one for RR, I added the coins I liked. There were coins with a hammer price <20 euros and some with prices >100. Was the price a factor that influenced me in choosing them? Yes. But not determinant. My RR Top 10 had a small number of views and votes. This means, probably, that people do not like Republican coins. Or simply did not like my coins. This surely doesn't make me like my Republican coins less.

[shanxi]

As a collector, I like both, but I rate the rarities higher.

Having the only known specimen of a coin type in the collection weighs higher for me than owning the most beautiful specimen of a mass coin. 

Fortunately, speculators see it differently, and the rarities remain affordable. 

 

As a viewer, I like seeing beautiful coins I will probably never own: for example, a Syracusan decadrachm, but also rare depictions e.g. the only portrait of a historical person or the depiction of a now lost building. 

Beautiful Syracusan decadrachm > worn Colosseum sestertius > XXXXF Gordian

Edited December 7, 2022 by shanxi

[ComicMan]

I am still a beginner and I don't have anything that is rare, but I have a lot of coins that I consider to be beautiful.

Ancient die engravers were artists, and some of them were really good, I just have to appreciate that. Also, common coins in mid condition where you see that they were handled by some people are actually great, because you know that thing has a secret history, it does not all have to be pristine for me.

Maybe that will change as I go on collecting.

17 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

The answer posted by @Limes is fully in line with my views also. A coin I like might be a rare one, a beautiful one or even a common one that is not in the best condition.
Like most of us, my funds are limited. And even if I admire and from time to time acquire beautiful coins (although this term is subjective) - I sometimes pass coins in great condition. This is not a major criteria for me - I want my coins to have eye appeal for me. What I collect are coins that are important for my collecting style (connected to historic events/places/people/interesting design) and - very important - that I can afford.

Something rare that I will probably not get soon - an Otho denarius. I don't want one that is too ugly for me to like (especially since they're not cheap). I would afford one in decent condition but this would mean I spend the budget for 20 of my usual coins. Why should I do this since 1. Otho is not an emperor I am very interested in 2. I do not have a main target to complete a 12 Caesars set.

From the numismatic value and possible resell value (irrelevant for me as I do not intend to sell my coins too soon) then probably an Otho denarius in a decent condition is better than 20 common denarii. I don't care. I strongly prefer 10-20 denarii of Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Pius for example. As long as I like them.

And for places in top 10 - I think the coins should be chosen according to the satisfaction they provide to the owner. And the votes will be granted according to what an external person likes, and this can be very different. In the 2 threads I posted, one for Greek/Provincial coins and one for RR, I added the coins I liked. There were coins with a hammer price <20 euros and some with prices >100. Was the price a factor that influenced me in choosing them? Yes. But not determinant. My RR Top 10 had a small number of views and votes. This means, probably, that people do not like Republican coins. Or simply did not like my coins. This surely doesn't make me like my Republican coins less.

Ditto on Otho, other than completing a set nobody really cares about him I think (though the way he went out is kinda respectable).

Nobody cares about Nerva either, I could have 2 Trajans / Hadrians / Marcus Aurelius, or even 4 Antoninus Pius coins for a Nerva! And the first 3 are the guys that people actually care about. I actually saw some Nerva coins go for a reasonable price at Leu (this is a nice coin I was eyeing it, but decided not to go for it) but others went for way more. I would rather have a nice Lucius Verus and Commodus included in my Adoptive Emperors set rather than a mediocre Nerva.

[Al Kowsky]

I agree with Nvb, there are many very common coins that can be considered rare because of unusually fine die work, extraordinary condition, excellent strike & surface, & very attractive toning. To illustrate those points I'll make a comparison with 4 coins from my collection. The first two coins pictured below are very common & I don't consider either coin ugly, however, the 2nd denarius of Severus has a superior portrait, it's well struck & centered on a round flan, & the reverse has unusually fine die work for the type.

The next two coins are very common Byzantine 40 nummi of Justinian I, struck at the Constantinople mint. Some people consider all Byzantine coins ugly because their style differs so much from classical Greek & Roman coins. It is very difficult to find these large bronze coins well struck & in choice condition, that's why I consider the 2nd coin rare. Notice the difference in surface between these coins & the sharper detail of Justinian's head on the 2nd coin.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Al Kowsky
grammar

[kevikens]

Look at my avatar for my answer.

[kirispupis]

9 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Here's an ugly rarity that might appeal to you:

That's a heck of a coin! Airai is on my list (along with 183 other coins). You paid an amazing price for it too. I hadn't quite started accumulating city coins in earnest then, or I would have certainly bid on it.

Note that the results of this survey won't impact the coins I acquire, but they will skew those I post.

[Qcumbor]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:37 AM, DonnaML said:

As the saying  goes, there's nothing more common than a rare ancient coin. Except perhaps an ugly one!

And there's nothing rarer than a common coin in pristine condition (well, sort of... 😉 )

I tend to like beautiful rarities the most 😄 

Q

Edited December 8, 2022 by Qcumbor