Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet Challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins!!!

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


Author Topic: Antoninus Pius Sestertius head to head. [Contest over, winner declared]  (Read 4783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Two Antoninus Pius Sestertii in competition this time.

Charles S


Mark Z


Both coins depict Spes on the reverse so I "hope" that you will take the time to vote on them.  ;D

This contest ended on the 10th of May 2015.

Thanks,

*Alex.

Offline Mark Z

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2256
  • Sit Julius Caesar quod vos es non.
Dear Friends,

Vote early and vote often for the coin belonging to yours truly!  ;) ;D ::)

Regards,
mz  +++

Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
Dears ,

Charles collection is spectacular everyone knows that.

For the fairness of the competition the 3 votes of **  on Mark Z coin , should be deleted .
The blind can see they are more than votes .

Sam
Sam Mansourati

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.

For the fairness of the competition the 3 votes of **  on Mark Z coin , should be deleted .
The blind can see they are more than votes .


Sorry Sam,

As far as I am concerned the votes are absolutely legitimate. Not only have the three votes you mention been cast over a period of some years, they have also been cast by three different Forvm members. Members are perfectly entitled to vote as they see fit on a coin, that is the point of us having the range of options. Low votes would only be of concern if the voting was malicious and that is not apparent in this case.

*Alex


Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
I am sorry Alex , I have to disagree on this my friend .
Also that is not what the FORVM help questionnaire says .

I believe 2 stars and below meant for very bad coins , fake or..etc.


I love Charles coins , I simply voted for Mark Z  but I did not
decrease the rate of Charles '.

Sam
Sam Mansourati

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
I am sorry Alex , I have to disagree on this my friend .

I believe 2 stars and below meant for very bad coins , fake or..etc.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  ;D

Such coins should not be in the BOT gallery in the first place. It is expected that the standard of the coins in the BOT gallery will be on average higher than those in member's own personal galleries and members should take note of that fact when voting. Some do and some don't and that is why, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing particularly untoward with the votes which have been cast on these coins.

I honestly think that the subject of voting has been amply covered by these two topics:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=72258.0

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=71857.0

*Alex.

Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
Alex , my Dear friend ,
Few members only , they use their votes to highly like  a coin
and same time to  dislike the other coin to the ground. But they are enough to kill chances .

Only one vote on either coins is allowed if you want the game clean

and only 4 or 5 stars option allowed.

Sam
Sam Mansourati

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.

and only 4 or 5 stars option allowed.


And then what do you do when a better coin comes along. Personally, I vote a lot of fives in members' personal galleries but in the BOT gallery a coin would have to be exceptional in my view for me to give it a five star rating. Also I must point out that the ratings given in a head to head contest are often different to those which a member might give to a coin on a "stand alone" basis.
Furthermore, while I might agree with you that no coin in the BOT should perhaps rate a zero or a 2, at the same time there are many coins in the gallery that do not rate a 5 or even a 4. These coins are only in the gallery because no one has uploaded a better example, I know this because several of those coins are mine.  ;D

*Alex.

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford

and only 4 or 5 stars option allowed.


And then what do you do when a better coin comes along. Personally, I vote a lot of fives in members' personal galleries but in the BOT gallery a coin would have to be exceptional in my view for me to give it a five star rating. Also I must point out that the ratings given in a head to head contest are often different to those which a member might give to a coin on a "stand alone" basis.
Furthermore, while I might agree with you that no coin in the BOT should perhaps rate a zero or a 2, at the same time there are many coins in the gallery that do not rate a 5 or even a 4. These coins are only in the gallery because no one has uploaded a better example, I know this because several of those coins are mine.  ;D

*Alex.

+++

In BOT head to heads, if I can imagine a significantly better coin than both candidates in time, then I'd likely give a 4 to the better coin and a 3 to the worse coin. If two coins are so far apart that I can easily imagine a condition in between them, then I'd usually award a 5 and a 3. If that applies and the better coin could still easily enough be improved then I'd likely award a 4 to the better coin and a 2 to the less good coin. Practically any of 2,3,4,5 are needed by me to express my views in a BOT head to head. I can't imagine a coin I'd rate 1 being in a BOT head to head, but 2s occur from time to time and 3s pretty often.

I think the genesis of this is that Sam is known by me and others to be a really nice guy who says nice things about the coins of everyone, so I can quite believe that Sam can't imagine awarding less than 4. I, however, am probably a tougher and less-forgiving judge of coins that I know can easily-enough be found better!

Offline benito

  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2640
  • quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra
How high would you vote for this coin.
a.Considering only its condition
b.Considering its condition plus  scarcity or rarity .
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-119903
I have included it in BOT because its the best I have ever seen.

Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
Hello Andrew ,
Thank you for the reply.
I know you are severe as a sword in right . But what I am 100 % sure of , is you are
fair . Even if your son's coin were on competition  you would say what you believe is right , as you will never down rate a coin for lowering chances of winning .

Benito's coin of Vespasian (?) ( was posted here )  is a great example of my point from the beginning .  


***added  : Which Alex said   ''absolutely legitimate'' ( The votes on Pius Ses of Mark Z)

      which I totally disagree with him ( Alex )

Sam
Sam Mansourati

Offline Charles S

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
How high would you vote for this coin.
a.Considering only its condition
b.Considering its condition plus  scarcity or rarity .
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-119903
I have included it in BOT because its the best I have ever seen.
I believe the scarcity or rarity of a coin can determine whether or not it could be included in BOT, but the vote does not have to take scarcity into account.  For example, a coin with unique reverse type, being the best of type because there is only one, is included in BOT.   Suppose that coin is in very poor condition, with a large hole drilled at one edge and corrosion badly affecting the portrait (actually I have just seen a coin exactly like this in the B.M. collection).   Even though it is the best known of its type, it also is a very poor coin which does not deserve a high rating.  Still, even with a low rating, it should be allowed to remain in BOT, until a better specimen turns up.
Charles Schotman

My gallery

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
That's it! This contest is over and Charles S's coin has won. Congratulations.

Commiserations Mark Z, I have moved your coin to the "Coins from Members' Personal Ancient Coin Galleries" gallery.

They are both nice coins but, in the BOT gallery, there can be only one.

Thank you to everyone who took part in this contest.

Thank you too Sam for your input, I am sorry that I have been unable to satisfy your concerns.

Please remember that we are voting on the coins, inanimate objects, not the person who uploaded them. And to be frank, I already think that the majority of the members who vote in the BOT gallery are being too nice. I feel that members should, like Andrew, use a wider range of the options available. If nothing else it might lessen the chances of tied coins in the head to heads, something which has become much more prevalent recently.
This is meant to be a bit of fun and, although malicious voting will not be tolerated, I think it makes sense that voting members should not tie themselves down to voting just a 4 or a 5 because anything else is not considered as "being nice".  :evil:  ;D

*Alex.


Offline Charles S

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Dear all,

Thank you all for your input and your votes.

Charlles

Charles Schotman

My gallery

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
I really think that some members worry far too much about the gallery rating of their own coins. There's essentially three possible reasons for a coin scoring lower than a member might like

- an accident, where someone's thumb slips on their iPad. In which case it's a random event that might affect any gallery coin equally and members should accept it's going to happen sometimes

- an honest evaluation of a coin in which case members should accept it's going to happen sometimes

- a deliberately low score, that might even be bot-driven, in other words randomly electronically programmed to click on things that are clickable. Shrug one's shoulders and forget about it, it's also as random as a thumb-slip or a bad coin strike. If on the other hand one imagines for some bizarre reason that a low gallery vote is targeted at you specifically, then commenting on dissatisfaction with the ratings isn't likely to discourage it happening.

Over the last three or four years I've subjected countless of my own coins to another type of rating: I've sold them at auction. Then one occasionally feels the harsh sense of rejection when a beloved coin gets no bids or even worse, sells at minimum. But I've learnt to respect, over time, the curious votes of those who use pounds, dollars and euros rather than stars, and mentally congratulate low-bidding winners, accepting the random accidents of fate and the honest judgement of my peers, i.e other collectors. In other cases, coins I got rid of because I thought them ugly (i.e. I'd probably have given them one-star if they were in the Forum gallery) fetched absurdly (to me) high prices. That's playing the coin-rating game for real. Here where we use stars it's a bit of fun and should be regarded as such.


Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
Congratulations , Charles .
I think you know how I highly think about your marvelous collection.

Alex , if what you said meant to be directed to me :

“Please remember that we are voting on the coins, inanimate objects, not the person who uploaded them.”

I will accept members judgment .

Sam Mansourati
Sam Mansourati

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Alex , if what you said meant to be directed to me :

“Please remember that we are voting on the coins, inanimate objects, not the person who uploaded them.”

Sam,

No offence was ever intended. I respect you for putting your point of view across, I have only been trying to explain why I disagree with you.

Regards,

*Alex.

Offline Mark Z

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2256
  • Sit Julius Caesar quod vos es non.
Hello All!

Charles, congratulations! It's a beautiful coin and worthy of the BOT gallery! :)

Alex, you're the perfect guy to run the BOT challenge thread. Thanks for that!  +++

Sam, I appreciate your campaign on my behalf! :police:

To everyone else, as always, I appreciate your comments and your votes! :angel:

Regards,
mz

Offline Charles S

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Hello All!

Charles, congratulations! It's a beautiful coin and worthy of the BOT gallery! :)

Alex, you're the perfect guy to run the BOT challenge thread. Thanks for that!  +++

Sam, I appreciate your campaign on my behalf! :police:

To everyone else, as always, I appreciate your comments and your votes! :angel:

Regards,
mz

Mark, Thank you for your kind words.
Charles Schotman

My gallery

Offline Sam

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Ego vici mundum
You are welcome Mark and congratulations again Charles  , as I thank Andrew for being fair .
Honestly every one can read what I said. I was only against the way  some votes are . My speech was clean  and general and And taken wrongly against a person , my speech would be the same if Charles or any other member was the offended otherwise I could have manage some “absolutely legitimate “ votes and change the result , I ended up with a reminder and then No offense   in stead of apology .

Keeping a respect and appreciation to the president of this site , I will not answer.
No wonder good members flying one after the other .


Sam Mansourati
Sam Mansourati

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.
Hi Sam,

I am sorry that in some way I have offended you, this was never, ever, my intent at all. I cannot be clearer than that.

I have read and reread this topic and I honestly I do not understand what the problem is or what I should be apologising for.  ???

I assume it is something to do with my using the words "absolutely legitimate"? But FORVM records the IP addresses of everyone who votes in these head to heads and none of the people who voted have, I can assure you, done anything untoward in my view. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that these were malicious votes.

I hope that I have managed to explain myself and that we can still be friends.

Regards,

Alex.

Offline *Alex

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • IMPERATOR
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
  • Etiam Iovis omnibus placere non possunt.

Benito's coin of Vespasian (?) ( was posted here )  is a great example of my point from the beginning .  


That coin was I believe indeed a case of malicious voting which, as I have already stated, is unacceptable. The votes on that coin were not cast in a head to head situation. I therefore deleted the votes on it after it had been drawn to my attention (which should please benito  ;D) and in consequence of having done that the coin had no further bearing on this thread so I removed it from this topic.

*Alex

Offline Matthew C5

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
I've been reading this last string of posts and thought to say something constructive to help.  Personally I have had a few quite rude comment shot at me from some of my posts here on the forum, and being fairly new it somewhat soured my interest.  I think that it is not always 'what' one says but 'how' they say it that will yield a positive or negative reaction.

In our age of technology it has become easier to overlook or even care about politeness, but concerning most of these seemingly negative posts it would seem like the approach is to blame.  I'll avoid any real example on purpose, and hope that Sam sees that Alex is trying hard to be nice.


Matt

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
I've been reading this last string of posts and thought to say something constructive to help.  Personally I have had a few quite rude comment shot at me from some of my posts here on the forum, and being fairly new it somewhat soured my interest.  I think that it is not always 'what' one says but 'how' they say it that will yield a positive or negative reaction.

In our age of technology it has become easier to overlook or even care about politeness, but concerning most of these seemingly negative posts it would seem like the approach is to blame.  I'll avoid any real example on purpose, and hope that Sam sees that Alex is trying hard to be nice.

Matt

I actually think that everyone in this thread is nice, and was trying to be nice. Especially to the other thread participants.

Whether it's also necessary to be nice to each other's coins is maybe a matter we don't all agree on. I suspect the coins don't really mind getting the occasional low rating. Generally I find my coins to be well behaved and polite. They don't talk back even when they are within listening distance of comments about their imperfect surfaces, poor centering or wear. That's good, because the idea of 1000 coins all talking to me at once hardly bears thinking of. But it seems some people's coins do talk to their owners judging from interventions made on their behalf.

Offline Matthew C5

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
I appreciate your light post Andrew.  Some of this is needed at times;)

....so if only a small percentage, say 1% of my coins get insulted when I state their imperfections, should they got straight to auction, or should I try to rehabilitate them in solitary confinement for a few months??

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4222
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
    • Bronze Coinage of the Man-faced Bull

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford

Offline Norbert

  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • 42

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity