Rare or EF ?

[Steff V]

Opinions will probably differ on this one but what, assuming that two coins cost the same, is 'better':


the rare coin ("fine" or less) or the common EF ?

[Minos]

Depending, but most probably the common EF.

[Jochen]

I think that's correct!

Jochen

[Molinari]

Common extremely fine is relatively rare because of its condition, so I agree...unless it's something where only a few are known.

Nick

[cliff_marsland]

My answer is the rare (or normally expensive) one in mediocre condition.  I'd take a Vitellius Sestertius in BD-free G-VG over an XF Hadrian Sestertius.

[Andrew McCabe]

Opinions will probably differ on this one but what, assuming that two coins cost the same, is 'better':


the rare coin ("fine" or less) or the common EF ?

You have to choose the coin which has more learning value. This can produce different answers in different cases

- If the EF has details, e.g. of drapery or attributes, that are usually missing from ordinary specimens, it may be the better buy

- If the F/rare is a type that fills a special gap, fills a numismatic story, balances an otherwise unbalanced collection (a missing emperor), allows one to check the look/feel of a coin type one wouldn't otherwise get to touch, is a type which has limited examples of online photos, or where there are few cited examples in major catalogues which this one adds to, then choose the F/rare

As general experience I have tended to find that for a $100 or $200 coin, the latter situation occurs MUCH more often than the former, and thus the F/rare usually provide better value for money. When one hits high value coins the situation is often less clear because the EF/common example may be a best-of-type and thus provide more learning. At the very lowest price range, a $25 EF LRB may provide a novice collector with his/her first EF which teaches a lot in itself - does one go for that or for the $25 F/rare LRB or can the latter await another day. So circumstances are important.

[Potator II]

My answer is : it depends on the goal you have chosen.
From my personnal point of view, on my roman coins collection, which has no special theme other than "buy what I like" I would certainly answer the EF common one.
But for my specialized collection of feudal Dombes the answer, on the contrary would be the F or VF rare one.

Doing this is good for me as it doesn't generate too much frustration : sometimes EF, sometimes rare  

Best
Potator

[maridvnvm]

I have a similar approach to Potator.
I buy coins for my wider collection based on coins that I like. Condition certainly plays a factor there but eye appeal and general interest is king there.
I then have two more focussed collections where I am searching for gaps where condition is secondary and I have bought coins that are poor, zapped and pitted (that's just one coin having all those attributes) because it filled a gap.
Each of us collects in different ways and even then those can change over time.
Regards,
Martin

[Robert_Brenchley]

It all depends on what you're looking for, and how interested you are in that specific coin.

[ancientone]

I was going to say it depends on what you collect as Robert said. I'm more on the rare side than EF. If a coin is from a city that I don't have or might not see another example again, condition is not critical.  For me, owning a coin that no one else has or can purchase is more valuable than an EF example of a common coin.

Regards,
Charlie

[Potator II]

I was going to say it depends on what you collect as Robert said. I'm more on the rare side than EF. If a coin is from a city that I don't have or might not see another example again, condition is not critical.  For me, owning a coin that no one else has or can purchase is more valuable than an EF example of a common coin.

Regards,
Charlie

You are right Charlie, but sometimes the condition in itself makes the rarity

Best
JC

[Andrew McCabe]

You are right Charlie, but sometimes the condition in itself makes the rarity

Yes. And sometimes not. If there's a large hoard of FDC examples around, FDC may in fact be the common type.

Easy quiz question: what is it that makes the two coins below so exceptionally rare (related to this topic)? I'd like to hear answers from those who have to think through the answer (for some of us it will be instantly obvious) as there is real numismatic learning here.

[Steff V]

Easy quiz question: what is it that makes the two coins below so exceptionally rare (related to this topic)? I'd like to hear answers from those who have to think through the answer (for some of us it will be instantly obvious) as there is real numismatic learning here.

I have no idea... The first is not well centered and it doesn't have an unusual artistic style (my opinion). There is something strang on the obverse (above the three vertical lines) (?)

Also the second coin is quite normal to me. That brownish patina maybe? Is it a fourrée? I have really no idea...

[Andrew McCabe]

Easy quiz question: what is it that makes the two coins below so exceptionally rare (related to this topic)? I'd like to hear answers from those who have to think through the answer (for some of us it will be instantly obvious) as there is real numismatic learning here.

I have no idea... The first is not well centered and it doesn't have an unusual artistic style (my opinion). There is something strang on the obverse (above the three vertical lines) (?)

Also the second coin is quite normal to me. That brownish patina maybe? Is it a fourrée? I have really no idea...

Anyone else have an answer? It's necessary to know these specific types (Koson stater, Cassius Tripod RRC500/1) - which are nowadays really quite common - to recognise what is rare and unusual about these specific coins. I would say my comments will fall into several categories, rather like peeling an onion layer by layer

1. How these coins visibly differ from others of the type (the real easy question)
2. What these coins are NOT (relatively easy if one knows many other examples)
3. Provenances
4. Implications for authenticity
5. Specific comments regarding the historical and monetary significance of these types in 42BC which may be overlooked by considering most (99%+) of such types available on the market
6. Implications for long-term ownership

[Andrew McCabe]

Easy quiz question: what is it that makes the two coins below so exceptionally rare (related to this topic)? I'd like to hear answers from those who have to think through the answer (for some of us it will be instantly obvious) as there is real numismatic learning here.

I have no idea... The first is not well centered and it doesn't have an unusual artistic style (my opinion). There is something strang on the obverse (above the three vertical lines) (?)

Also the second coin is quite normal to me. That brownish patina maybe? Is it a fourrée? I have really no idea...

Anyone else have an answer? It's necessary to know these specific types (Koson stater, Cassius Tripod RRC500/1) - which are nowadays really quite common - to recognise what is rare and unusual about these specific coins. I would say my comments will fall into several categories, rather like peeling an onion layer by layer

OK. no-one is going to comment. So here are my comments:

1. How these coins visibly differ from others of the type (the real easy question)
They are worn, and in the case of the Koson, worn and mounted. There are approximately 200 examples of the Koson stater and over 100 examples of the Cassius Tripod on acsearch/CNG. Every single one of the Koson examples is unworn. All except one other Cassius Tripod is unworn.

2. What these coins are NOT (relatively easy if one knows many other examples)
Hence these are not modern hoard coins - every other example listed IS a modern hoard coin. As such they are extremely rare

3. Provenances
The Cassius Tripod has a provenance of one of the greatest old collections of coins, the Nicolas collection: Silbermunzen der Romischen Republik, Leu 17, May 1988. So not only is it not a hoard coin, it has an old provenance from an illustrious collection. This is not so surprising as until the big hoard of these types was discovered a few years back, all of the very very few examples made their way into the very best collections. The Koson is in a Czech museum. This was the ONLY circulated example I could find on the internet and in the last 10 years I have only seen a single example that was not from one of the recent hoards. These sort of provenances emphasise the rarity and great importance of these (worn) examples, relative to the unimportant (unworn, hoard) examples.

4. Implications for authenticity
There is no question about the authenticity of all the recently discovered Cassius Tripod denarii but there has sometimes been mumbling about the Koson stater hoards being 'extended' by modern struck examples, which rumours have increased following the appearance of previously unknown silver examples of the type. The point about the two worn specimens is that they are immune from such rumours - their condition demonstrates their antiquity. And no-one is going to take an EF example of either type and wear them down to this condition: no-one except a specialist would pay a decent price for them.

5. Historical and monetary significance of these types in 42BC
Going back to numismatic books of the 1500s, both these coin types were noted as being extremely rare, and as recently as the 1980s both showed very high prices. This implies the coins were NOT in general circulation in any great number after 42BC when Octavian and Antony defeated Brutus and Cassius. So the fact of the great rarity of these (worn) coins does tell is something about what happened after Phillipi in 42BC in terms of Brutus/Cassius coinage being likely withdrawn and melted, or never issued in great quantities. One does not get this picture from the modern hoard finds.

6. Implications for long-term ownership
Needless to say, as it is easy to demonstrate just by looking at 99% of the Koson staters and 99% of the Cassius Tripod types that they are all from recent hoards, there is a real risk that sometime in the next decade someone comes knocking at your door asking for the return of your examples (presumably after a raid of some nature at one or more big dealers, which reveals who they sold them too). Had any of us bought the Cassius Tripod provenanced, old collection example for the modest $1200 it sold for last year, we would be very happy, and could keep it or trade it in perpetuity. That was a true bargain.

So the moral of this is that sometimes being EF, of itself, detracts from the value and numismatic interest and collectibility of a coin type. Sometimes the F example is more desirable BOTH for its condition as well as for its rarity.

[Steff V]

Level: advanced 

[Andrew McCabe]

Level: advanced 

Overall, maybe yes but "They are worn, and I ever don't recall seeing a worn example" is probably at the Intermediate school level    The rest of the storyline follows that observation.

The great thing about coins is that a lot can be learnt just by looking and observing even when they are other people's possessions.

[cliff_marsland]

I don't think there's any shame in worn or problem examples of rare or expensive types. One can always get a better example later.  I like being able to have an example of the rare or expensive coin.  Having it is more important than the condition to me.


I was delighted to be able to own a Brutus as Imperator.  it looks better in person.  It came with an old collection ticket, in case the coin fascists are watching.

I happen to divide my resources between two to three hobbies.  In old time radio, I can keep up with the big boys in terms of titles. Try getting an ET of I Love A Mystery.  One only turns up every 30 years or so. In coins, not so much.  However, I'm happy with the coins, and that's what matters.  Luckily, there's no real OTR-nazis.  I suppose because it's a cottage industry that doesn't make the income it once did in its 70s heyday.

I was also finally able to get Didius last year.


This one has hardly any wear, but I got it on the cheap because  it's porous.  As I recall, it was the same price as the Didius.



Wear, within reason, doesn't scare me unless it's super-duper ugly.  Bad BD does scare me off though.

I was somewhat bummed I missed out on the recent Sulla's Dream denarius.  Those always seem to be decrepit.  Somewhat got a nice deal and a desirable type.

I did actually buy a fairly nice example of a rare type today.  I'll post it to the gallery when I get it.


I have to rely on dealer pictures, because my macro photos turn out horribly.  Things might improve, as I'm thinking of getting a new camera.  Hence, my gallery's basically a hodge-podge of some things I've acquired since 2009 or so.