Romismatist

Yes, it looks good to me as well.

Yep, one of those was the UK EBay seller I was thinking of. Crazy how some people just trust that these are genuine without doing more due diligence. There is a lot of money being made by fraudulent sellers and lost by trusting individuals with more money than sense, I guess.

I think the style does make it appear to be a fake, even compared to contemporary imitations. It's very similar to a known fake seller on EBay UK who continues to sell fakes for hundreds of pounds a pop. The ragged flan and applied patina may make it appear more genuine, but I would have steered clear of this one. Forgers are getting increasingly better at distressing coin flans to make them appear more genuine, so you have to be a lot more careful with assessing style, die matching, or pedigree, the last two of which are pretty challenging for Athenian tetradrachms given their massive production and availability in the market. Caveat emptor.

Looks great! Thanks for sharing!

Someone didn't read the fine print, or else something was lost in translation. I guess it was at least two people who missed the memo if they bid it up to 333 euros!

Browsing through Ebay, I often see a lot of fake Athenian owls and other obvious fakes commanding similar prices. Although the coins are clearly fake, someone apparently thinks they are not! 

Down the road, there will be a lot of disappointed people when it comes time to sell grandpa's (or grandma's) collection...

Even though this isn't my collecting area or area of expertise, I would have steered clear of this coin based on the style. I guess these days forgers try to explain away awkward styles as "contemporary imitations". To me, all the devices on the coin seem too evenly worn - I would expect that the high relief of the bust would wear more quickly than the legends. Also, why is the legend to the top right on the obverse sharp while the beaded border just beside it is very worn? It seems impossible to create that effect through honest, natural wear. Everything also just looks a bit too "soft" to me.

@kirispupis, I found it a fascinating read, and great investigative sleuthing. I really can't add anything to this depth as it's not my area, but your posts are all great and I always enjoy reading them. Please keep them coming!

Definitely fake, reverse looks pressed, not struck, fields too flat & even...

Another great list with wonderful coins. My favourite would definitely be the Tarentum nomos, as I collect coins of that city (and surrounding Messapian mints) and have a similar example, although not as well-struck as yours.

Awesome coin lineup, a lot of Good Emperors and Severans in there, I love them all. Looks like you had a great year, Donna! Congratulations!

Crazy stuff. This is why I continue to be so paranoid about buying potential fakes. I appreciate the ongoing vigilance of the members of this forum to keep us all aware of the increasing sophistication of forgers out there. It makes me much more wary when I am buying a coin, either off EBay or even in an auction. If the style is a bit off or the details look too mushy, I will usually pass, but a telltale sign should also be when the surfaces and flan of the coin are too perfect. Now even that may not be enough.

I recently acquired this type as I have been collecting Hadrian's travel series on and off for about 30 years. This type actually took a while to get an example of because most of the ones I encountered previously were either in pretty dismal condition or were ones I was suspicious of as potentially being fakes (yes, I am pretty paranoid about that these days). Based on my experience, this type is pretty hard to get a hold of, harder than others like Aegyptos or Hispania, for example. I think the OP coin is in decent condition and I would have considered it previously. If you can get one with an older providence like my example helps dispel any fears of it being a modern forgery (your coin looks pretty genuine to me). 

From my perspective, I agree with what everyone has posted here. From a style perspective, it is close to genuine coins, but I also agree with @robinjojo's thoughts on how even and flat the fields are, how uniform the thickness is, and how evenly round the edges are. Add to that the mushy details and I think that despite the genuine wear on the coin, it is most likely a fake. Still, I think from an educational point of view, @janpieter14 has learned a lot about Sicilian history and a potentially new hobby at a minimal cost. Although Sicilian silver may be pricey, the bronzes can be had in decent shape at affordable prices.  

I'll be honest, when dealing with really rare coins like this, I wouldn't mind a bit of damage or legends off the flan as long as it doesn't significantly detract from the main details of the coin itself. Not everyone can afford super-expensive coins, and it would still be cool to own such an interesting and historically important type. I think the portrait on the OP coin and the seated figure of Zeus on the reverse are both in decent shape, so if the coin is comparatively "affordable" it would still be an attractive buy. It's definitely a coin with a great story and some character to boot. 

3 hours ago, airhead1983 said:

Thanks so much, everyone!

@Romismatist, here is the thread I was referring to:

Cool coin, Erin, thanks for sharing! Based on the associated discussion, it's pretty obvious that your selfless actions and kind nature are at the heart of your colleagues' wish to gift you the coin... they knew they were passing on the coin to someone who will cherish and appreciate it. I'm sure it will take pride of place in your collection!  Enjoy!

Cool update, Erin!

I missed your earlier posts about receiving the gold coin... was it an ancient? I am curious about the type... would be cool to see pictures.

I have only one gold coin in my collection, it is a 14th century goldgulden from Germany acquired many years ago.

With a quick glance, what are your thoughts? Patina (at least from the picture) looks convincing, and style is... close?

Currently being sold as a fake...

I don't know about you, but I think that at least some of the fakes out there continue to get better... caveat emptor...

@leeshieldid you find this with your metal detector as well? Nice artefact!

Welcome, @Hughie Dwyer, and nice collection of coins! Most of the advice I would have provided has already been mentioned (this forum has some of the most knowledgeable ancients experts out there), so I will refrain from restating except for a few highlights:

• your coins all look genuine, and as another member already noted, you have a good eye
• the grading seems off - EF typically refers to much less circulated coins - but I would go by "eye appeal" and what you find most attractive in your price range
• the AE2 / AE3 designation is only used for late (~4th) century bronze and not denarii or earlier antoninianii like your Postumus
• I agree that EBay is a minefield for the beginner but it is a good place for bargains once you get your sea legs under you

One other bit of advice I would give would be to do lots or research and "window shopping" for particular coin types that take your fancy. View / handle more coins than you buy in the beginning to build that knowledge and expertise. This is a lot easier now with the internet than in the days of physical catalogs. The more genuine ancients you view and preferably handle in person, the better you will become at recognizing the style, fabric and texture of genuine ancients versus fakes. I check out coins on both auction platforms like SixBid or Biddr but also peruse EBay as well. First and second century denarii are always a good place to start as the emperors are all very recognizable, and their styles will soon become second nature to you.

Lastly, I've found that this forum will always give you lots of ideas and new knowledge on which direction to take your collection or particular pieces which may be of interest.

Enjoy! 

I think that both are fine. The Postumus above is billon with more silver than bronze, so risk f bronze disease should be low. The deposit does look more like malachite. The Amisos AE is likely fine too. The deposits there don't look too bright green, which indicates verdigris rather than bronze disease. Just my $0.02.

Love the coin, it looks incredible!

Here's my own recent "impulse" buy which I kind of regret now (but not really). It's a late AE of Tarentum (c. 280 BC). These types are relatively scarce in great condition and go for way more than I paid. The city name is also rarely legible, which it is on this specimen. I put in what I thought was a low bid at the time and won it at my max bid. However, I glossed over the note that the coin was "leicht bearbeitet" ie "lightly tooled", which likely kept many higher bidders away. The coin does look a bit too perfect, but a closer evaluation shows that it wasn't reworked too extensively, and it does have a nice apple-green patina that is nicer in hand than the picture shows.

I know how many people feel about tooled coins (and I'm one of them - hence the partial regret) but the reality is that I probably wouldn't have been able to afford a coin in any condition even approaching this one otherwise. 

Interesting coin! The breast feathers look punched in rather than part of the original die. The wing feathers and olive leaves also look engraved. Has anyone ever seen these coins tooled? It's not really my collecting area so I couldn't say for sure.

I'm not familiar with the coins of Side, but one of the countermarks on the Athens Tetradrachm is the same as mine (the one on the right in the picture below, although the countermark on mine is a bit larger), which is genuine. These countermarks and chisel marks meant that these Athenian Tetradrachms circulated in Syria and the Levant. The OP coin looks genuine as well. Here's mine for comparison: 

Great writeup, @kirispupis, on a ruler I previously knew nothing about! Thank you.

@ambr0zie, another possibility is that one is an official issue and the other could be an unofficial issue. Barbarous radiates were having their heyday around the time that these Quintillus antoninianii were minted, c 270 AD or so.

I think that they are both wonderful coins, and definitely genuine, so I wouldn't be too concerned about their differences.