Constantius II AE3/4

That coin is well struck and has nice, almost complete detail.

Attractive coin!

I really disagree. The coin does not have 'almost complete detail' unless you consider the mintmark as inconsequential. That NGC can call 4/5 a coin missing so much legend including a mint mark that is half off is why I can not take seriously their services in particular or slabbing in general. I guess they see the coin as well struck because of the detail it has while I see it more for the most significant detail it lacks.

I was curious what experienced ancient collectors would say about the grade, because I don't see ancients graded "AU" very often. If I sent in an ancient to get slabbed by NGC, I would hope they would determine the mint, if at all possible--by cross-referencing if needed. In other words--make a serious effort for my money.

Focusing on ancients that are slabbed is a needless and limiting pursuit--imo. Simply because respected dealers of ancients can guarantee authenticity just as well as any TPG. And since later Roman AEs aren't commonly faked, the issue of authenticity is largely moot--correct attribution is more important. Another limiting factor to slabbing is how many ancients simply will not fit into TPG holders. And once a coin is encapsulated, the main aspect of ancients I enjoy most--the details--are one step removed by those plastic coin coffins.

This is not a critique of your coin--it's very nice! I'm just a critic of slabbing as it pertains to ancients, because it doesn't have to limit the collector.

Allow me to jump in with my 2 cents worth. Everyone here knows how I feel about slabbing. It's why I no longer collect modern coins. I also agree with Doug. Without a mintmark, the ancient coin is incomplete. This particular coin's mintmark can probably be discerned in the proper light or with the correct equipment. Having said all of that, this is a nice coin in any event.

BTW,