Steppenfool

38 minutes ago, O-Towner said:

Here's one of my favorites:

Constantius II Ae Follis, Rome mint : struck ca. 350 AD

Obv: D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG: Draped bust right wearing pearl-diadem and holding globe, A behind

Rev: GLORIA ROMANORVM; Emperor on horseback right spearing enemy whose shield and broken spear lie beneath horse; star above, R T in exergue

Ref: RIC 198

That was one of Magnentius' reverses, I believe he inverted the Fallen Horseman intentionally. I imagine these were produced after the Battle of Mursa when Italy changed sides to Constantius, but before the mint prepared new reverses. Also possibly made during the revolt of Nepotianus? Very cool coin either way!

Nice coin, I'm surprised it took them so long to depict a temple!

As for the reddish encrustation, I quite like it, adds an air of authenticity. However, depending on how it looks in hand, I may be tempted to prod it with a wooden toothpick and see what happens. If it seems very attached I would leave it, if it comes of with a little bit of force or seems crumbly I'd probably attempt to remove it.

On 6/6/2023 at 10:55 PM, Barnaba6 said:

Thanks for your purchase! what's also interesting is Probus' decorated shield (3 rows of soldiers with shields). 

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

55 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

This is the response from the firm:

Dr. Roman Collector:

i checked the coin with the microscope. I still tend to say that the coin is not tooled, but shows significant cleaning marks. The coin used as reference shows an alternating pattern of fine and strong hairlines. If a coin is used especially the fine lines will be lost and only the strong lines will be visible.  Also the patina of the coin is still intact, some encrustations visible inside the lines. The Type of Patina / Corrosion is quite thin, so there is not much room to cut details into the patina (Cuts in  Metal would surely be visible.

 

 

All the best

Marcus Naumann

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).

10 hours ago, Captch said:

.Nice video, @Steppenfool and nice coin @Curtisimo. I didn't know about the Constantine issue with his eyes raised upwards. I did a double-take when it first appeared onscreen because of how it differs from every other bust

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.

1 hour ago, Ursus said:

Dorotheum sold an example from the Haeberlin collection in 2016 without mentioning that it was as fake. Here is the link to the auction result including pictures: https://www.dorotheum.com/de/l/1353340/ .

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a forgery.

EDIT: Woytek has published a paper on this type in German, apparently argueing for it being an early modern forgery. I currently don't have access to this paper, but here are the bibliographical details: Bernhard Woytek, Die frühneuzeitlichen Denare Nervas mit PAX AVGVSTI. In: Numismatische Zeitschrift 124 (2018), 57-78.

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

7 hours ago, CPK said:

Browsing some of Forvm Ancient Coin's archived sales and came across this lovely Trajan drachm. As a fan of coins with animals, I was immediately smitten by the wonderfully rendered camel.

Just thought I'd share!

Here's the listing for those interested:

Roman Coins of Trajan (forumancientcoins.com)

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?

Quote

It's being gifted to the ANU Museum of the Jewish People in Tel Aviv.

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.

24 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Sometimes even recent auction history can provide an assurance of reputability that doesn't necessarily attach to a current dealer. As with my Corinth stater, which I purchased from Athena only because it was ex Roma from an auction a couple of years previously, and I was able to confirm from the old auction photos that its appearance hadn't been altered since then. So the provenance wasn't merely an accidental benefit; it was necessary to my purchase.

 

 

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.

Quote

an essential property of an object is a property that it must have, while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack.

13 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Just a further take on @DonnaML's analogy.

Say that you desperately want a specific type and your favorite coin dealer lists two copies for the exact same price. The first has this provenance attached.

Thomas Edison and Howard Hughes in particular wrote that its presence improved their lives and pushed them to greatness.

The second has this provenance.

Owned by George P Dweeb. Spectators and a store owner have testified that Dweeb purchased this coin shortly before he intentionally drove his car over a litter of puppies. Its sale will help finance his legal fees.

I cannot believe that anyone would take the second..

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.