Breathtaking Roman Aureii

An article by Dr Hugh Preston in the July 2001 issue of The Australasian
Coin and Banknote Magazine shows by means of a table that for a high grade
Domitian Aureii you would need to pay around $6500 AUD. This was the second
cheapest along with Vespasian. Tiberius was the cheapest Aureii at $6000
AUD. The other end of the scale is Julius Caesar (of course) with an
anticipated budget of $60,000 AUD. I don't know what price increases there
have been in 3 years.

Mame

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 04 Sep 2004 18:08:16 GMT, (JOPN) wrote:

How the heck does gold look so beautiful after all the years - it's
amazing

Because gold is the least chemically reactive numismatic metal. Unlike
silver and copper and so on, it doesn't change, even over thousands of
years, though the minute amounts of other metals that ancient gold is
mixed with can change. And even pure gold can become encrusted with
dirt, grease, organic matter, salts, and so on, just like other coins,
but unlike with other metals this encrustation doesn't corrode the
gold and can be cleaned off.

I agree though that for this price, and for far less than this price,
you can find more beautiful and breathtaking ancient gold coins. I
don't know this coin, though -- it might be some sought-after rarity.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:02:18 +1000, "Mame" wrote:

An article by Dr Hugh Preston in the July 2001 issue of The Australasian
Coin and Banknote Magazine shows by means of a table that for a high grade
Domitian Aureii you would need to pay around $6500 AUD. This was the second
cheapest along with Vespasian. Tiberius was the cheapest Aureii at $6000
AUD. The other end of the scale is Julius Caesar (of course) with an
anticipated budget of $60,000 AUD. I don't know what price increases there
have been in 3 years.

Interesting. Seems you know your stuff. I was basing my statement on
the pricing of ancient Roman and Greek coins in general, not Domitian
aureii specifically. If you're just looking for beautiful ancient gold
coins vs. if you're looking specifically for Domitian aureii. Do you
know the least expensive Roman gold? I believe the least expensive
Greek gold coins are the 1st century BC posthumous Lysimachos staters,
which can be had in aEF condition for about $500/$600, more or less,
depending, etc., etc. g A good many of these show evidence of die
rust, though. The Koson staters are equally affordable, though
stylistically they're somewhat buffoonish.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

I am a novice when it comes to ancients. Maybe someone with a roman
catalogue will be able to answer your question about Roman gold.

I have been enamoured with the 12 caesars for quite a while now and I always
read articles about them whenever I seem them. I have had the privelege of
handling a complete high grade silver denarii 12 caesar collection as my
dealer has 1 and 3/4 sets.

I would personally love a aureii 12 caesars (who wouldn't) but unless I win
lotto then I would be happy with a VF silver denarii set. :-)

Mame



"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:02:18 +1000, "Mame" wrote:

An article by Dr Hugh Preston in the July 2001 issue of The Australasian
Coin and Banknote Magazine shows by means of a table that for a high
grade
Domitian Aureii you would need to pay around $6500 AUD. This was the
second
cheapest along with Vespasian. Tiberius was the cheapest Aureii at $6000
AUD. The other end of the scale is Julius Caesar (of course) with an
anticipated budget of $60,000 AUD. I don't know what price increases
there
have been in 3 years.

Interesting. Seems you know your stuff. I was basing my statement on
the pricing of ancient Roman and Greek coins in general, not Domitian
aureii specifically. If you're just looking for beautiful ancient gold
coins vs. if you're looking specifically for Domitian aureii. Do you
know the least expensive Roman gold? I believe the least expensive
Greek gold coins are the 1st century BC posthumous Lysimachos staters,
which can be had in aEF condition for about $500/$600, more or less,
depending, etc., etc. g A good many of these show evidence of die
rust, though. The Koson staters are equally affordable, though
stylistically they're somewhat buffoonish.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Mame wrote:

"An article by Dr Hugh Preston in the July 2001 issue of The Australasian Coin
and Banknote Magazine shows by means of a table that for a high grade Domitian
Aureii you would need to pay around $6500 AUD. This was the second cheapest
along with Vespasian. Tiberius was the cheapest Aureii at $6000 AUD."


Singular - aureus, denarius
Plural - aureii, denarii


Anka ---- ahem ;-)

I wrote:

"Plural - aureii, denarii"


Ooops. Make that aurei.


Anka

"Mame" wrote:
I have been enamoured with the 12 caesars for quite a while now and I always
read articles about them whenever I seem them.

It is only because of the extant manuscripts of Suetonius's LIVES OF
THE CAESARS (De Vita Caesarum) that we see The Twelve Caesars.
Written in 110 AD, during the reign of Trajan, Suetonius wrote about
"the first twelve" and stopped there.

The result is that collectors of ancients see the Julio-Claudians and
the Flavians as one continuous line, which they were not. After the
Civil War of 68-69, the Julio-Claudian line came to an end. In fact,
that hyphen indicates a thin connection through marriage. So, you
could define three lines: the Julians, the Claudians, and the
Flavians.

Collect as you will, you have only yourself to please, of course.

Michael
ANA R-162953

I think it's similar to the fact that we only hear about certain English
monarchs. Henry 8th, Elizabeth 1st etc.

I had to laugh....in the opening sequence of the Cate Blanchet movie
Elizabeth, there wasn't even a single mention of Edward 6th. It was like he
didn't even exist despite ruling for 14 years (albeit as a child) between
the death of Henry 8th and Mary 1st.

Mame


"Michael E. Marotta" wrote in message
om...
"Mame" wrote:
I have been enamoured with the 12 caesars for quite a while now and I
always
read articles about them whenever I seem them.

It is only because of the extant manuscripts of Suetonius's LIVES OF
THE CAESARS (De Vita Caesarum) that we see The Twelve Caesars.
Written in 110 AD, during the reign of Trajan, Suetonius wrote about
"the first twelve" and stopped there.

The result is that collectors of ancients see the Julio-Claudians and
the Flavians as one continuous line, which they were not. After the
Civil War of 68-69, the Julio-Claudian line came to an end. In fact,
that hyphen indicates a thin connection through marriage. So, you
could define three lines: the Julians, the Claudians, and the
Flavians.

Collect as you will, you have only yourself to please, of course.

Michael
ANA R-162953

Do you know that England had a Queen Matilda, during the first English Civil
war of ca. 1136-1154, and that betwixt the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I,
there was a Jane I? Jane was the Protestants choice for Queen over Catholic
Mary, and she ruled a mere 9 days. Basically she did not have designs on
the throne herself, but only those of her controllers. She was only 16yrs
old whence she became monarch, after Mary assumed the throne Jane was
summarily executed.

Queen Matilda was King Stephen's chief rival and may have had a better claim
to the throne, but she was exhonerated in the end, her child would succeed
Stephen on his death in 1154.

I think it is funny that QEII is QEII, and not QEI, as the first QEI was
only the Queen of England, and NOT of the United Kingdom. The United
Kingdom of QEII is not just England, but also Scotland, Wales, and Northern
Ireland. James I was James VI of Scotland.

Dave

--
emails to (myuserid).at.lycos.com

Tir nam Beann, nan Gleann, s'nan Gaisgeach - Saor Alba A-Nis!
"Mame" wrote in message
...
I think it's similar to the fact that we only hear about certain English
monarchs. Henry 8th, Elizabeth 1st etc.

I had to laugh....in the opening sequence of the Cate Blanchet movie
Elizabeth, there wasn't even a single mention of Edward 6th. It was like
he
didn't even exist despite ruling for 14 years (albeit as a child) between
the death of Henry 8th and Mary 1st.

Mame




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/04

I always felt sorry for Lady Jane Gray. She was well and truly a pawn in
somone elses fight for power.

I think it is funny that QEII is QEII, and not QEI, as the first QEI was
only the Queen of England, and NOT of the United Kingdom. The United
Kingdom of QEII is not just England, but also Scotland, Wales, and
Northern
Ireland. James I was James VI of Scotland.

Now that would be just plain confusing. :-)

Mame

"Scottishmoney" wrote in message
...
Do you know that England had a Queen Matilda, during the first English
Civil
war of ca. 1136-1154, and that betwixt the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I,
there was a Jane I? Jane was the Protestants choice for Queen over
Catholic
Mary, and she ruled a mere 9 days. Basically she did not have designs on
the throne herself, but only those of her controllers. She was only 16yrs
old whence she became monarch, after Mary assumed the throne Jane was
summarily executed.

Queen Matilda was King Stephen's chief rival and may have had a better
claim
to the throne, but she was exhonerated in the end, her child would succeed
Stephen on his death in 1154.


Dave

--
emails to (myuserid).at.lycos.com

Tir nam Beann, nan Gleann, s'nan Gaisgeach - Saor Alba A-Nis!
"Mame" wrote in message
...
I think it's similar to the fact that we only hear about certain English
monarchs. Henry 8th, Elizabeth 1st etc.

I had to laugh....in the opening sequence of the Cate Blanchet movie
Elizabeth, there wasn't even a single mention of Edward 6th. It was like
he
didn't even exist despite ruling for 14 years (albeit as a child)
between
the death of Henry 8th and Mary 1st.

Mame




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/04

Scottishmoney wrote:

Do you know that England had a Queen Matilda, during the first English Civil
war of ca. 1136-1154, and that betwixt the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I,
there was a Jane I? Jane was the Protestants choice for Queen over Catholic
Mary, and she ruled a mere 9 days. Basically she did not have designs on
the throne herself, but only those of her controllers. She was only 16yrs
old whence she became monarch, after Mary assumed the throne Jane was
summarily executed.

Queen Matilda was King Stephen's chief rival and may have had a better claim
to the throne, but she was exhonerated in the end, her child would succeed
Stephen on his death in 1154.

I think it is funny that QEII is QEII, and not QEI, as the first QEI was
only the Queen of England, and NOT of the United Kingdom. The United
Kingdom of QEII is not just England, but also Scotland, Wales, and Northern
Ireland. James I was James VI of Scotland.

Dave


The arguement i've seen used is that the recently departed Queen Mother
was actually Queen Elizabeth I of the UK through marriage.....hence her
daughter being QEII.

********! I say, but no-one listens to me anyway. ;-)

Ian