The (Complete) Dotted Border

[Helvius Pertinax]

I only have one that gets close, only on the reverse unfortunately:

 

A tiny bit on the bottom is chopped off due to the irregular flan, but I consider it pretty much complete

[Helvius Pertinax]

Accidentally submitted twice 🤦‍♂️

Edited August 5, 2022 by Helvius Pertinax
Aaaaaaaaaah

[DonnaML]

@maridvnvm, your mention of Probus led me to take another look at my coins of his, and I think this one qualifies, or at least comes close. But it's not from Rome; it's from Serdica [Sofia] (3rd Officina, 4th emission [Gysen], 280-281 AD): 

Edited August 5, 2022 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

A question relating to this subject. Does any of you ever see the presence of a full dotted border mentioned in the description of a coin? Does it increase the price of a coin? I suppose I do see descriptions like "fully centered," even if they don't specifically reference the border. Just speaking personally, a coin with a full border is certainly nice, but it's not something I pay attention to in my buying or bidding decisions. And I don't think that in choosing between two coins I would pay any more for a full border on one of them, assuming that two coins both have full designs, and all other things about them are equal. 

[ambr0zie]

Never seen a coin with this description, but I saw a few times coins being described as "struck on large flan" or "generous flan". This (sometimes) means the full border is visible. Having the full border wouldn't make me buy a coin (I saw 2 provincial ones with this feature in an auction today). Lost them, not sure the winner(s) took this into consideration, but it's an extra feature that makes a nice coin nicer.

[Justin Lee]

I've got this Gordian that has a nice full flan that was able to get pretty much all the border on.

[maridvnvm]

I have seen "full circles" used by several dealers.

[zumbly]

A Max Thrax provincial that was struck on an overly generous 38mm flan.

MAXIMINUS THRAX
AE Hexassarion. 20.44g, 38mm.
CILICIA Anazarbus, circa AD 235-238.
Ziegler 663 (Vs2/Rs4); SNG Levante 1480 (same obv. Die); RPC VI temp 7446/2 (this coin).
O: AY K G IOY OYH MAZIMEINOC CEB, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
R: ANAZ END MHTRO B/G, female figure (Synthysia), holding bipennis over shoulder, standing left before bull standing left, CYNQYCIA OI/KOYMENHC, (ME and NH ligate).
Ex Kelly J. Krizan, M.D. Collection; ex Classical Numismatic Group 53 (15 Mar 2000), lot 1130

[Curtis JJ]

5 hours ago, DonnaML said:

A question relating to this subject. Does any of you ever see the presence of a full dotted border mentioned in the description of a coin? Does it increase the price of a coin? I suppose I do see descriptions like "fully centered," even if they don't specifically reference the border. Just speaking personally, a coin with a full border is certainly nice, but it's not something I pay attention to in my buying or bidding decisions. And I don't think that in choosing between two coins I would pay any more for a full border on one of them, assuming that two coins both have full designs, and all other things about them are equal. 

Good question. As @ambr0zie said I think it's probably indicated with "full flan" or "medallic flan" or similar most of the time, or just subsumed under general "eye appeal."

However, it didn't take me too long to find a description on ACSearch that specifically mentions it. Wouldn't you know, it comes from Stack's Bowers lol (they're very ... verbose in providing superlatives and descriptions of their ancients, maybe that's typical for modern coins?):

"With an exacting, razor-sharp strike that is so well centered that the beading of the borders on each side is wholly contained upon the flan, the eye appeal of this wondrous specimen is clearly off the charts." -- Macrinus Aureus, Stack's-Bowers August 2021 ANA Auction, Lot 43133

I definitely look for that feature, but partly because it's indicative of a full flan and centering... I do think it can be a pleasing artistic element or "frame" for the engraver's work, especially when there's a bit of "empty" space just beyond it, and because it gives a sense of where the die "ends" and "completeness" of the design, I guess. I'll go for those coins more aggressively if the coin is attractive overall.

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

I haven't seen much mention of the dots around the coin being perfect, but I have seen "magnificent flan" or words to that effect.

[Severus Alexander]

Love this thread, but haven't managed to contribute until just now. It's amazing to me how few coins in this thread actually qualify, if we're being really picky!  Maybe 3 or 4 at most!

I have quite a few coins that are "close but no ceeeegar", like this follis for example. It come really close but is missing some complete dots between 12 and 1 on the obverse:

In general it seems to me the early folles are going to do better than most Roman coins on this score.  They often have generous flans and were carefully struck.  Here's one of mine that nearly crosses the full border finish line... except a couple of flan splits take out two dots on the obverse, dammit! 😠🙃

Constantius, Cyzicus (I think these may have a narrower dotted border diameter than other mints, so might qualify more often?):

For denarii, those of Severus Alexander seem a good bet, although I don't have any that pass the test.  For earlier antoninianii, Gordian III is the obvious one.  Some of those posted above at least come close!  The later you get in the process of debasement the harder it will be to find a Full Border Fully Struck (FBFS, a new acronym for coin nerds - you like, @Curtis JJ?) although the generous flans on the ants of Macrianus and Quietus might be fertile ground.

Post Aurelian's reform (the "aurelianus") it becomes easier again.  Here's a fairly humble Carus that's improved by a full circle of dots, although an area of flat striking means it doesn't quite qualify, if we're being picky.  That said, it's neat it has the full border despite a smallish flan:

Same thing for this follis of Diocletian:

(This coin is actually a little less humdrum than it looks, in that it's from the scarce 2nd issue of folles from Antioch.  I have yet to find an example from the first issue.)

I didn't search my whole collection, maybe I have a perfect border lurking somewhere.

How many coins in this thread do you think actually cross the picky version of the finish line, @Curtis JJ?

[Curtis JJ]

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

How many coins in this thread do you think actually cross the picky version of the finish line, @Curtis JJ?

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

Full Border Fully Struck (FBFS, a new acronym for coin nerds

1 hour ago, Severus Alexander said:

It's amazing to me how few coins in this thread actually qualify, if we're being really picky!  Maybe 3 or 4 at most!

FBFS, I like it! As you say, as soon as one tries to count it becomes clear there could be a few possible standards. Do we count it if the border is a 360-degree circle, but the beads weren’t differentiated or are worn enough to have smoothed together? What if the circle is complete, but its outer edge appears to touch the edge of the coin? Do we forgive a crack that doesn’t eliminate a full or partial dot? (We may need to add a few new 5-point scales to the NGC label, lol!)

Using the strictest two-sided standard, honestly…I could see awarding as few as zero! But, like you, I came up with 3-5 total with no real FBFS-defects (two of them with very minor ones).

The only way I could figure to tabulate them was by counting the number of flaws from a list of four (undifferentiated – wear; undifferentiated – strike; edge split; edge contact) and make separate counts for the one-sided and two-sided standard. (Just using 2-sided below.)

Those with 360-degree borders on both sides:

Very minor defect, or none: 3 – 5.
One defect: 10 (Σ = 13-15).
One defect (significant): 2 (Σ = 15-17).
Two defects: 14 (Σ = 29-31).

That’s out of 62 total qualifying entrants (both sides shown, coin type ideally includes ~360’ borders of some kind on both sides). Wow, exactly half qualified on a loose standard!

Most of the ones that have it (or close) might be surprising – tending to be late Roman Antoniniani and Folles. It is impressive how well they could strike those large tetrarchy folles, considering the “pearl ring diameter” could probably be well over 25mm.

So, I think one could say, within any given type, those with two full rings will be more desirable on average. But, most of those with full rings won’t be the most desirable overall, since they’re usually going to be Late Roman Antoniniani and Folles (or a Justinian Follis or one of the Provincials that had big flans and small dies).

[Severus Alexander]

Thanks, @Curtis JJ, for your thoughtful and thorough answer to my question!

I'll just add one coin I forgot to include, my favourite use of the outside-the-border engraving technique, and purchased for that very reason:

Antiochos IX (114-95 BCE), Seleucid Coins (part 2) 2388, issued 112 BC - 102 BC, denomination B. Eros / Nike.

This was a case where an off-centre obverse was actually a selling point!

[DonnaML]

5 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Love this thread, but haven't managed to contribute until just now. It's amazing to me how few coins in this thread actually qualify, if we're being really picky!  Maybe 3 or 4 at most!

I have quite a few coins that are "close but no ceeeegar", like this follis for example. It come really close but is missing some complete dots between 12 and 1 on the obverse:

In general it seems to me the early folles are going to do better than most Roman coins on this score.  They often have generous flans and were carefully struck.  Here's one of mine that nearly crosses the full border finish line... except a couple of flan splits take out two dots on the obverse, dammit! 😠🙃

Constantius, Cyzicus (I think these may have a narrower dotted border diameter than other mints, so might qualify more often?):

For denarii, those of Severus Alexander seem a good bet, although I don't have any that pass the test.  For earlier antoninianii, Gordian III is the obvious one.  Some of those posted above at least come close!  The later you get in the process of debasement the harder it will be to find a Full Border Fully Struck (FBFS, a new acronym for coin nerds - you like, @Curtis JJ?) although the generous flans on the ants of Macrianus and Quietus might be fertile ground.

Post Aurelian's reform (the "aurelianus") it becomes easier again.  Here's a fairly humble Carus that's improved by a full circle of dots, although an area of flat striking means it doesn't quite qualify, if we're being picky.  That said, it's neat it has the full border despite a smallish flan:

Same thing for this follis of Diocletian:

(This coin is actually a little less humdrum than it looks, in that it's from the scarce 2nd issue of folles from Antioch.  I have yet to find an example from the first issue.)

I didn't search my whole collection, maybe I have a perfect border lurking somewhere.

How many coins in this thread do you think actually cross the picky version of the finish line, @Curtis JJ?

Oh, you want full dots, do you? Full circles aren't good enough? And the circles can't touch the edges? You really are picky. I'm glad you weren't in charge at the mints, or nothing would ever have gotten done!

Anyway, if I had to put forward one of my coins as the closest to meeting your standard, it would have to be (appropriately enough) the Severus Alexander/Mars Ultor denarius. I think it does have full dots on the reverse, and comes pretty close on the obverse. My Plautilla may be the next closest, and is pretty good for a denarius. One isn't going to find too many of those that qualify, I think.

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by DonnaML

[Severus Alexander]

49 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Anyway, if I had to put forward one of my coins as the closest to meeting your standard, it would have to be (appropriately enough) the Severus Alexander/Mars Ultor antoninianus. I think it does have full dots on the reverse, and comes pretty close on the obverse. My Plautilla may be the next closest, and is pretty good for a denarius. One isn't going to find too many of those, I think.

Agreed! Denarii are tough, and those are two of the closest in the thread.  I don't think I have anything to rival them.  (Maybe the only better ones are Phil's Republicans.)

[Mucius Scaevola]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:29 PM, El Cazador said:

Absolutely LOVE that Caligula in the middle!

I would cut myself a toe off for the Cali! 

[Qcumbor]

On 8/4/2022 at 11:10 PM, ambr0zie said:

 

Although this coin is far from fulfilling the scenario, I think it deserves a mention, as it is (as far as I know) the only example of a Roman coin where the design exceeds the border (similar to the Greek examples posted in the OP)

I see another RR denarius that fits the bill of the design exceeding the dotted border : Jupiter's thuderbolt does. But Jupiter can do what he wants, doesn't he ?

 

Q

 

[Qcumbor]

As for the OP challenge, I must admit it's quite difficult to find something that fully qualifies.

Almost there :

 

Q

[ambr0zie]

8 hours ago, Curtis JJ said:

FBFS, I like it! As you say, as soon as one tries to count it becomes clear there could be a few possible standards. Do we count it if the border is a 360-degree circle, but the beads weren’t differentiated or are worn enough to have smoothed together? What if the circle is complete, but its outer edge appears to touch the edge of the coin? Do we forgive a crack that doesn’t eliminate a full or partial dot? (We may need to add a few new 5-point scales to the NGC label, lol!)

I do not own any slabbed coins (ancient or modern) but the above discussion made me wonder if a slabbed ancient having a 5/5 strike should be correctly centered and with the border fully visible on both sides.

[Roman Collector]

Here's one of my pre-reform radiates with a full dotted border.


Maximian, AD 286-308.
Roman Æ Antoninianus, 3.78 mm, 23.0 mm, 12 h.
Cyzicus, AD 293-294.
Obv: IMP C M A MAXIMIANVS AVG, radiate and draped bust right.
Rev: CONCORDIA MILITVM•, Emperor standing right, receiving Victory from Jupiter standing left; Г/XII•.
Refs: RIC 607; Cohen 53; RCV 13115; Roll-Vélez 9.

 

 

[Spaniard]

Full dotted borders 😉.

Hormizd IV. A.D. 

 

[Severus Alexander]

6 hours ago, Spaniard said:

Full dotted borders 😉.

Hormizd IV. A.D. 

 

Yes!  Sassanid certainly reduces the flan size part of the challenge. 🙂 Still, it's not trivial to have all the dots fully struck up and individuated.

Peroz (457-484), AY mint (Susa)

Edited August 7, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Spaniard]

Maybe Ceylon...?

Seated king, SRI PARAKRAMA BAHU in Brahmi in two vertical lines in the left field / King standing, small altar in the left field, various dots and decorations in fields. 21mm, 4.27 grams. Mitchiner NIS 845-847. SKU 35672

[Phil Davis]

8 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

I do not own any slabbed coins (ancient or modern) but the above discussion made me wonder if a slabbed ancient having a 5/5 strike should be correctly centered and with the border fully visible on both sides.

I think that's a reasonable expectation, but it's not the standard they use. I'm constantly rolling my eyes at strike 5/5 coins with obvious centering issues and flatness.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Phil Davis

[ambr0zie]

To be honest I never paid extreme attention to full borders - if I like a coin, full border is one of the last things I look at.

And the other way around, if I don't like a coin I won't say - nah, I don't like/need this, but hey, it has a full circle  there, let's buy it!

I don't buy slabbed coins because for me, as an amateur collector, who only bought 3 coins > 100 EUR each, buying a slabbed makes no sense. But I would expect a 5/5 strike to be a perfect strike - good flan, good centering, above average dies and good strike.