Augsburg City View Talers (Upgrade Arrived - Image and Help Needed)

Zohar

As part of the Holy Roman Empire theme, I included a very common type as Ferdinand III. This type was broadly minted and circulated, and is therefore conditionally scarce. An auction seach shows plenty in AU, far fewer in mint state. Beautfiful reverse design IMHO. I have been buying these nice as placeholders until I find the right one as an upgrade, hopefully a GEM specimen at some point. I recently picked up the top one in PCGS MS-64 (still en route), yet this is the seller's image. I hope it to be as nice and original in hand. I will be letting one of the others go as a result.

1641. Augsburg. Free City Taler.
Obverse: IMP: CAES: FERD: III. P.F.GER: HVN: BOH: REX. - Bust of Ferdinand III to right. wearing laurel wreath.
Reverse: AVGVSTA. VIN -- DELICORVM - City view with city arms in front dividing date 16 -- 41, three horseshoes below.
Catalog reference: Dav-5039, KM-77.

PCGS MS-64



PCGS MS-63



PCGS MS-63

ormandh

Very nice!

JCMhouston

A lovely piece Z.

Burks

2nd one is a stunner!

OriginalDan

<< <i>2nd one is a stunner! >>



Agreed and I bet the first one is too in hand, or with better imaging.

Swampboy

If it proves more appealing than the 63s it will be a stunning piece.

EVillageProwler

May I play too?

My erudition isn't as great as Z's, so I will simply quote from the Krause catalog:

KM# 61 THALER

Obv: Large pine cone in laurel and palm wreath held by hand from above right Rev: Crowned imperial eagle, orb on breast, date divided at top, titles of Ferdinand II Note: Varieties exist. Dav. #5035.

Zohar

EVP never seen that type. Very nice!

EVillageProwler

<< <i>EVP never seen that type. Very nice! >>



I put up the wrong image before. Please check again. This one should be much more familiar to you.

Zohar

Didn't see that one before as well. Very nice!!

marcmoish

the middle one is a beauty - love it - when you get the 64 you'll compare further - can't tell much from seller photo..

evp that gem sports a grade?

EVillageProwler

<< <i>evp that gem sports a grade? >>



Yes, but I really hope folks would appreciate the coins for what they are beyond NGC (or PCGS) say it is. That's why I don't usually volunteer the grade. 62, but its eye appeal and originality makes it special beyond its slabbed grade. Besides, I think I paid too much for it for a mere 62.

Maybe someday it'll get into a 62+ holder.

EVP

marcmoish

nothing wrong with stating a grade really...you can post any jewel in any grade and get different comments or views - most will attest to the beauty of the coin or details not necessarily the numerical grade. Any discussion regarding grade is helpful for so many others I've heard over the years..much can be learnt from these threads.

I know you've felt this way for some time I guess I understand on some level what you are saying.

In your case I was interested because in my mind I see a 63 over 64 and was curious...

EVillageProwler

Marc,

I am not opposed to grades, and certainly want to take advantage of every opportunity to help others if they feel they can benefit. My fear is that too many people get hung up on grades -- but that only matters if it is *your* coin and when it comes time to buy or sell. Look at the light-side forum. Those guys go crazy over GTG threads. Some guy (I forget if here or ATS) asserts that he knows how to look at coins and knows how to grade, then confidently asserts that an NGC-slabbed high relief in 66 warrants Stuppler's PQ sticker based solely off a flat digital image. That coin may be PQ, but I have no way of knowing. At that point, I just want to run head first into the wall.

I love posting my new Anglo-Saxon hammered pennies, because they are usually raw. I find folks can just focus on the coin and the associated history. And if anyone insists on GTG (like that bammed Mumu person who now resides ATS), well, I doubt that he knows the British grading system.

Anyway, at this point I feel I should apologize to Z for allowing this pet peeve of mine to distract from his as usual excellent thread. I should have just posted the grade and withheld the commentary.

EVP

PS I think my coin is grade-limited because the planchet is slightly curved due to the technology of the day. (IIRC, since I haven't seen the coin in a while.)

Zohar

EVP no problem with expansion of the thread as in my case the MS64 and two MS63s each receive a different reaction based on image, toning and overall appeal. They are technically in MS holders which initially get our attention as seekers of the nicer specimens. However there are some non-appealing mint state pieces that passed the technical test yet not the eye appeal. There is something to be said about choice AU (AU-58) which doesnt make the "MS" grade yet many times compensates in toning and/or eye appeal. Over time, I have evolved my collection to focus on the higher grades, yet have kept core pieces in a lower grade due to exceptional eye appeal or scarcity.

Here are a couple of 58s:

EVillageProwler

Ooh, yes, I can see why those "mere 58" specimens are keepers. Actually, they look like "AU62" specimens. And, the F1 looks really hard to grade.

marcmoish

agreed definite keepers...yup that 1610 is a fantastic example of what you described Z - totally PQ and amazing EA for the grade!

Zohar

The 1641 in PCGS MS-64 arrived - my lousy image posted at the top of thread. A killer coin for my collection. I am having a real challenge imaging it with my pocket cam and amateur setup.

A very friendly forum member (you know who you are ) had offered to assist my imaging effort and I believe this to be a great candidate for his assistance. Will connect offline.