Steppenfool

I had no idea those were soldiers, I always thought it was simply a decorative pattern!

I must say I am quite shocked. I can hardly weigh in as an expert, but the the "strong lines" in the example for sale don't look like they'd arise from natural wear at all. They also don't seem to match the "strong lines" in the unaltered example. It seems to me that the tooler has cut where the raised points on the veil should be, rather than where there should be depth. Below is (crudely) how I imagine the "strong lines" would actually appear on an unaltered specimen. The tooler seems to get it right at the bottom of the veil but then starts engraving where there should be a raised area instead?

That is a great shot of the bald eagle. I've never seen one in person, we get the golden eagles here in the UK.

Many thanks go to @Curtisimo for letting me use his coin of course, considering it makes up such a large portion of the video. He is blessed to own what (I judge to be) the best Julian coin that has been posted on the internet (and perhaps ever).

Thank you! Yes some of them to have an uncanny look about them. I can only speculate, but I think it was to separate itself via exaggeration from other historical issues with "raised eyes" that are more nuanced like certain Greek types. @David Atherton recently pointed out to me in another thread that certain Domitian portraits are classed as "eyes to heaven." as well I also believe that the orientation that people who photograph the coins choose does not help the uncanny look of the Constantine issues. Often they mark the rotational origin when the eyes are parallel, rather than when the neckline is, which makes Constantine look like he's a cartoon character poking his head around a corner. Below, on the left is the CNG original photo and seems to be the fashion, and on the right is how I personally orientate these coins, both in my mind, and when I photograph/edit coin images.

Bought this beauty from @maridvnvm in a very pleasant private sale! It's a very historically important issue from Carausius when he was trying to achieve a promotion from Usurper and share power with Diocletian and Maximian. Hence the issue with Diocletian on the obverse and PAX AVGGG (Peace of the three Augusti) on the reverse. Unfortunately for Carausius, the two emperors were not prepared to let him into the Imperial college. This is not my photo, but his is so good I can't help but reuse it.

Tooling like this is why I stay away from Large Roman Bronzes altogether. Also absolutely dying laughing at the Julia Domna on the Severus Aureus from @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, looks absolutely ridiculous.

Excellent, thank you for your help. I was planning on using this coin as evidence in a Youtube video, but best not to include it in this case. Looking back, it was actually Woytek that wrote the above paragraph I quoted from a Nerva book review.

Am I chasing after a fake coin? He wisely excludes a controversial coin type, known in very few examples and accepted as genuine by Mattingly, as a “modern forgery” (39): further research on these pieces by me has shown that the PAX AVGVSTI coins of Nerva are early modern fakes, first attested in a publication of the year 1601. The reverse type, showing Roma and the emperor clasping hands, is borrowed from bronzes of Vitellius. Not only denarii, but also one aureus of this type could be documented; most unusually, the denarii all seem to have been overstruck on Roman Republican pieces, probably at some time in the 16th c https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-archaeology/article/abs/reflections-on-nervas-imperial-coinage-n-t-elkins-2017-the-image-of-political-power-in-the-reign-of-nerva-ad-9698-new-york-oxford-university-press-pp-xvii-207-91-figs-isbn-9780190648039/4B98A90A059775AD6B37D4F876EB87A4

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces252457.html So I've got some corroborating evidence of its existence, just no picture. It's on OCRE too. RIC II 32, a denarius apparently. https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.2.ner.32?lang=en

EDIT: I have found corroborating evidence of this coins existence. It's RIC II 32 Nerva, Does anybody have this coin or an image of it? Many thanks EDIT 2: Turns out this coin type is possibly a fake? see post #3 _________________________________________________________________ I can't find any reference or image to this coin that is talked about in a paper I'm reading on Nerva's coinage, it is described as follows: " a PAX AVGVSTI type, restricted to the second issue of 97, shows Nerva shaking hands with Mars (or a soldier) " There's no note or reference attached. I'm assuming this is not the typical clasped hands CONCORDIA types, due to the different legend. The identification of Mars also makes me presume that there is a full figure present? The other possibility I thought was possibly a mix up with the Trajan and Nerva PROVID reverse, but again the legend counters this thought. Any help appreciated.

Lovely Old Cabinet Tone, and a black rectangle around those should you ever consign them to an auction house. 🤣

Couldn't fault this forum, it has had a perfect first year! Commendations to both @Restitutor and all the knowledgeable members that participate! Looking forward to many more.

This show was one of my first forays into Roman History, and Mr. Stevenson played one the most iconic characters. https://apnews.com/article/ray-stevenson-dead-5b07799bc227707825af4ff22786e8f2

Winds me up that the Provincial is so much better than the official in this instance. The pathetic little camel on the Denarius is a let down.

I can't find this information anywhere, but the head looks to be in the style of Domitian to me?

That's a great outcome, and very generous!

Must have been 2021. Here's the proof!

Lodge Antiquities disappeared for quite a while last year (or maybe the year before?) as well around the same time of year! They've been away from vcoins for around a month or two now. I'm certain when I last checked their eBay it was also offline so perhaps they have began the comeback since that has returned.

Does Severus Alexander have any antoninianii? I thought Elagabalus phased it out and Severus Alexander didn't mint any? Still doesn't exclude a brain fart by the mint-worker who prepares the wrong type of flan that was only in circulation a few years earlier.

There was a disgusting Titus Elephant denarius that I had my eye on, but it went way too high. Also A Severus LEGIO XIII denarius in rough shape I was the underbidder on. I also thought about bidding on the MATRI Faustina II but it was already too high at £55 for the shape of the reverse about 6 hours before the auction ended.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I mean accidental as in the essential/accidental distinction of properties, rather than "inconsequential" or however it came across. You probably already know what I mean now that I've clarified, but just in case. So the property that essentially defines provenance as "provenance", I don't really care for. This could be something like "a statement of testimony alluding to some prior knowledge of the items existence.". But accidental or non-essential properties of provenance, such contributions to legality or authenticity, I would perhaps value in certain instances, like if I was to purchase more expensive coins. I'm no philosopher or linguist so I hope I'm being clear.

Edison has similar atrocities on his record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant) In a hypothetical situation where everything is equal, I concede provenance could be a tie-breaker, but that's hardly the spirit of the thread, and probably not something that is ever going to occur. The thread was about a singular coin, and whether you would increase your bid/buy price with the addition of provenance. Besides, I think you're example, the provenance has the accidental quality of historical interest. Although I don't care for either of the men you mentioned so I suppose this particular historical interest wouldn't move me.

I think an important distinction that might be important here is between provenance in and of itself, and what provenance is capable of providing. I would pay extra for guarantees of authenticity and legality as I already do by shopping at established dealers. If provenance has the accidental property of providing proof of authenticity or legality, then I suppose I would pay extra for it. However, I would not pay extra for provenance because I find provenance interesting, if it did not possess these other accidental attributes. The extra security provided by provenance would also be quite low down on my ranked list of criteria if I was already shopping somewhere reputable. If the coin without provenance was even minutely better in some way, I would opt for that one. Unless, that is, the question entails that I can buy the coin with provenance on the cheap to turn a profit selling it back to someone who is interested in that kind of thing, but I don't think that is the spirit of the hypothetical. In addition, there are plenty of provenances that do not provide any additional service, I'd argue the vast majority don't, and simply indicate that the coin has been sold at another auction within the last decade. You often hear of high quality fakes passing through the hands of a few auction houses, and we've already this year been exposed to the fakery that goes on with much provenance anyway. So I think that even the accidental attributes that provenance provides are often phantoms too. With that said, my post about £0 was made with the caveat that my most expensive coin was £170. Since you have shared your purchases of gold solidi worth an order of magnitude more, it makes sense that our opinions differ. I imagine for lower budget coins, your opinion is probably closer to mine, and if I'm in a position one day to buy more expensive coins, I imagine my opinion will move closer to yours.

The only provenance I remotely care about is find spot and find context, as this may add to the historical insight, but unless there is a certificate or some such proving it then I wouldn't value that either as it's too easy to invent (then again, so would the paperwork, probably). I see the Rauceby Hoard everywhere now, I have no idea if the coins come with proof of coming from this hoard. This ultimately means I don't have any coins with interesting provenance, as it's mostly worth £0 to me, so I wouldn't pay even a modest increase in price because of it. This is of course contingent on me only buying £<200 coins. If I had coins worth multiple thousands, which comes with it potential legal issues and an increase in the quality of fakes, then provenance becomes a safety net worth paying for, but not for anything to do with the coin itself. I suppose I am #9 on the list @Ed Snible provided.