Which Geta denarius would you keep?

lordmarcovan

Actually, this is a pretty moot question, because I think I have made up my mind, but they are both very nice.

I paid $40 for one and I paid $79 for the other. Can you guess which was which, and which YOU would keep? The one I chose is not only a tiny bit nicer but has provenance (pedigree information).







By the way, I did the black-background pic with my scanner, using the advice I got from John Knudsen (johnsim03), and some tweaks of my own. Not too bad for a scanner pic, if I do say so myself. Better than my usual, anyway. I learned how to do a black background without using any photo editing. Like many scanner pics, it does tend to wash out the luster or make bright surfaces a bit flatter. The pic is grainy, but I am pleased with it as it is an improvement from my usual, I suppose.

Blackhawk

Were I to Geta denarius, I'd choose the second.

Blackhawk

When I read how much you paid for them, I almost had a Caesar.

Blackhawk

I'm sorry, I'll stop now...I'm probably striking a Nerva with some of you ancient collectors.

hookedoncoins

I would also choose the second coin since it has more detail. They are both very nice coins.

Aethelred

I like #1 better.

koincollect

I seem to like the first and would not care about the provenance.

Swampboy

I like the first one. What do the differences signify?



I really like this ancient silver.

Here's my Geta for another look.

lordmarcovan

Bill's quite the punster tonight!

Maybe I should've done this in a poll.

The first coin is a little more "natural" looking.

The second has a bit better detail but is bright and shiny, perhaps a little too shiny. It is lovely, though. The "shine" (I'm reluctant to say "luster") doesn't come out in the picture much.

The second is the one with a pedigree. Not necessarily a famous pedigree or anything, but a thirty-year-old one. I just think it is rather neat to know something about the past owners of a coin; it tells a bit of the story, since they can't talk. I guess I just gave away which one I chose, but I am still not totally decided yet, hence this discussion.

I would say the picture (dealer's photo) of the first coin is fairly accurate, while the picture (my scan) of the second one is accurate only in regard to the details and such- the coin has more "shine" to it in hand, as mentioned. Which is both good and not so good, perhaps.

Now, guess which was the $40 coin and which the $79 coin.

WillieBoyd2

Geta was the star of the Roman version of "Leave it to Beaver".

rhound1977

#2, I use black felt on my scanner for a background but about the only thing I scan is paper money.

johnsim03

I would keep the second one, as the rotation angle appears to be close to
0 degrees, and the portrait is excellent. I suspect that it is better in hand than in the image,
though the image is not bad at all !! Before I made the final decision, though, I would
check out the pellet on the reverse of the first coin, to see if it has any significance other
than being an adjustment mark... I suspect that number 1 is the $79 coin.

They are both nice coins.

Tough decision.

John

lordmarcovan

You are correct. #1 was the $79 coin.



<< <i>I would keep the second one, as the rotation angle appears to be close to 0 degrees, and the portrait is excellent. >>

The portrait is indeed excellent, and a tiny bit sharper than the first coin, but the rotation angle isn't necessarily zero degrees- that just happens to be the way I laid the coin on the scanner. I will have to examine that when I get home.

Thanks.

johnsim03

<< <i>You are correct. #1 was the $79 coin.



<< <i>I would keep the second one, as the rotation angle appears to be close to 0 degrees, and the portrait is excellent. >>

The portrait is indeed excellent, and a tiny bit sharper than the first coin, but the rotation angle isn't necessarily zero degrees- that just happens to be the way I laid the coin on the scanner. I will have to examine that when I get home.

Thanks. >>



I was going by the flan crack on the obverse and reverse, regarding the rotation angle. If it is the same crack on obverse and
reverse that appears in the image, it should be very close to straight up, right?

The alignment gets confusing sometimes...

John

lordmarcovan

Yes, I suppose you're right. The flan crack should tell the tale.

Automan

If the tone of the second one is natural, I would keep that one. Slightly better detail and more mature portrait. In particular, it shows more of the side burns.

If it's really, really shiny and at the same time somewhat grainy, I'd probably go for the first one, though.

Automan

dcamp78

I like the second one better. It looks to be centered better on the reverse.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>If the tone of the second one is natural, I would keep that one. Slightly better detail and more mature portrait. In particular, it shows more of the side burns.

If it's really, really shiny and at the same time somewhat grainy, I'd probably go for the first one, though. >>

The tone on the second coin is less natural. It is indeed really, really shiny. But not grainy- that is more an artifact of my photography.

The first coin is more natural but the "flash" of the second one is appealing, if not totally natural. And the second one has superior detail.

Here is another picture of the second one.

Automan

In the end, it's about which is more appealing to you. I tend to like toned silver, but shiny silver is nicer the better the grade.

Automan

lordmarcovan

Think I'll go with the shiny silver one #2, though the slightly more natural one is nice, too. As to the shiny silver one, I have a number of others from the the same collection, with the same look, and they are all really sharp, high-grade coins.

If anybody is interested in the first coin above at my cost, PM me. Otherwise, I might sell it to my uncle at a modest profit. He's more a hoarder than a collector, but mentioned he might be interested in a nice piece of ancient silver.