Tejas

Imitation of Probus aureus (RIC 831) Obv.: Helmeted bust with spear and shield Rev.: Quadriga Found: Khmelnitzskaya oblast, Tchemerovetsky raion Weight: 5.82 g (without the loop) This coin is no. 249 in the Anokhin catalogue (this coin). However, since the coin was cataloged the loop was removed and the coin was cleaned. The coin has been studied and recorded by numismatists in Kiew, Warsaw and Winnizya.

This is one of the Probus series. This type was apprently particularly popular. Weight: 4.68 gr Found: Near Lublin, Poland Anohkin No. 91 was struck from the same dies, but in gilded bronze

This piece may be a cast. Obv.: Bust with beard left Rev: Laureate bust without bear right Found: Shitomirskaya oblast, Berdichebsky raion Weight. 7.2 g. Anokhin catalog No. 17 (this coin)

To give you a sense of the diversity of the aurum barbarorum coins (I think better called Ukrainian imitations) Found: Kievskaya oblast, Belotserkovski raion Anokhin catalog No. 31 (this coin) This piece weights 6.4 gr.

Yes, it was on Violity, but I don't have that data. I used to collect copies of find spots and pictures for a while, but when a Ukrainian numismatist set up a web page with some 400 pieces I gave up my efforts. The Aurum Barbarorum coins are not really a series. I have seen them before they were sold by Leu and I helped with the cataloging, which is noted in the first catalog. The coins are extremely divers. They are normally holed or they have loops. They can be gold, gold plated or silver (despite copying gold coins). They are mostly struck, but some were found to be cast. Their weights range from something like 2.5 grs to 6 or 7 grs. They copy anything from 1st to 4th century Roman coins, but also include what seems to be independent designs. Germanic runes have been identified on some rare pieces. I own some 25 of these imitations, mostly in gold. I agree, I also don't think that the Sponsian coins belong to this group. However, very heavy gold imitations are known from that region. Below is a coin that seems to imitate Septimius Severus on the obverse and shows what looks like an independent design on the reverse. The ticket from "Otto Helbing Nachf., München" (I think 1920s) states "Sarmaten (?) - Jazygen (?) Goldmedaillon, Nachahmung nach Septimius Severus (193-211), Fundort Kischenau..." The weight is 11.55 gr. The Helbing cataloger apparently thought that the coin was made by Sarmatians/Jazygians, probably because of the findspot, which refers to Chisinau in Moldavia. (I have seen one other exemplar, which was described as Indian imitation, because of the dress of the figure on the reverse).

I don't know if the coins were struck or cast. To me the reverse of the Glasgow coin looks like a slipping die, but I agree the obverse looks very much like a cast. To your second point, I suppose we don't have to draw such a definite dividing line between barbaric or provincial sources. After all, we are talking about gold and everybody had use for that. The barbaric gold coins were never meant for monetary circulation. Regarding the weight, I have a 12g gold imitation of Septimius Severus, which was - according to a 100 year old lable from Helbing - found at Kishiniev in Moldavia, i.e. close to Transylvania. The cataloguer attributed it to the Jaszygians, a Sarmatian tribe that lived in the region in the 3rd century. So somebody apparently had a need for massively overweight gold pieces at the time. I think for a presentation piece this makes sense if that is what you needed to give to your followers in return for their support. For a 17. century forger, on the other hand, this makes little sense. At that time a forger could expect to get the value in gold unless he could find an enthusiast who would pay extra for the rarity. What we are debating is the question of when between 1713 and say 250 the coins were produced. My take on this is that the evidence points to a production date nearer to 250 than to 1713. This is primarily based on the new technical evidence, which supports the idea that the coins were buried in the ground for a long time before being found, and the fact that imitations of this or similar type (including the abnormally high weight) were produced in the right period and the right area. The evidence that points away from 1713 is in my view is the fact that a forger must have been quite lucky or knowledgeable to hit this period in Roman history. Also, he must have been quite uninterested in maximizing his profits by producing massively overweight coins. Finally, while the coins do fit into an existing corpus of ancient coins, they don't seem to fit into a corpus of late 17th/early 18th century forgeries. But of course, it is all a matter of probabilities and the weighing of the evidence. I guess we have to wait for the discovery of a third piece in the context of an archaeological excavations to have certainty. Until that time, this is likely to remain a contentious issue.

You are bringing up a number of good questions. On the method of manufacture, I think the comparison with the Brukenthal coin could suggest that the coins may actually have been die struck instead of cast. The obverse looks like it was cast, the reverse looks like it suffered from slipping dies. I can't decide. In any case, we know from the corpus of barbarous imitations from that region that barbarian craftsmen were able to produce dies. The same is probably true of provincial Roman craftsmen. Also, barbarians produced cast imitations as well. The Gordian III is in my view ancient albeit of course not official. It belongs in my view to the large group of barbarous imitations from that region. This also answers the question of why haven't any been found elsewhere. At least the Gordian III seems to have been found in other locations. But in any case, my theory regarding the Sponsian coins suggests that only a handful of presentation pieces were made. I can see the motivation of a modern forger, but do we have evidence for this type of forgeries being produced in the late 17th, early 18th century? Okay, a forger may find it worthwhile to produce a coin with the name of a made-up emperor to earn a big profit from the rarity. However, why would he go for a weight of 10+gr? If he thought that producing a coin of an emperor that nobody has and everybody wants, he could have maximized his profits by producing two coins stead of one, or better four instead of two. I would love to know if Baron Brukenthal paid more than the gold price for the coin. The normal procedure for finds like this in the 17th/18th century was to melt it down and sell the gold. Indeed, I would be surprised if he paid much above the gold price for the Sponsian, but of course, I don't know. I think it is important to note that style and fabric cannot really be used to determine whether such a coin is ancient or not. These coins are by definition irregular. I think the whole assessment stands and falls with the technical analysis. Unfortunately, I cannot judge this and take their results as given.

Very cool, I have seen the dies before on a Ukrainian detectorist website, where detectorists sell their finds. I think this coin belongs to the large group of imitative gold coins from Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria and Romania (Aurum Barbarorum as Leu has termed them) of the 3rd and 4th centuries, which have come to light in the last 20 years or so.

The Brukenthal coin is very interesting. Thanks for posting the picture. So if the reverse of the Glasgow coin is the result of a die slippage, we are saying that the coins were struck and not cast, right?

Here is another recent acquisition of mine. My one and only Antoninian of Hostilian, the brother of Herennius Etruscus. Obv.: C VALENS HOSTIL MES QVINTVS N C Rev. MARTI PROPVGNATORI Hostilian was too young to participate in the campaign against the Goths, which cost his father Trajan Decius and his brother Herennius Etruscus their lives. The Senate recognized him has successor and elevated him to the rank of Augustus, which Trebonianus Gallus, the actual successor of Trajan Decius seem to have accepted, probably to avoid civil war. However, Hostilian died in November 251, reportedly of the plague, but Zosimus suggests that he was assassinated. The coin is slightly off center, but I like the charming portrait of Hostilian, who may have been 15 or 16 years old at the time.

I think the coins are ancient, based on the technical analysis and the circumstances how and when the coins were found and aquired by the Glasgow museum. They were clearly not made by an official Roman mint, but, as I said before, they were probably made either by the barbarians, of whom we know made similar imitations at that time and in that region, or by a local, short-lived usurper who had no access to skilled mint workers or mint equipment. To be more speculative, I imagine a local Roman military commander who seized power sometime during the mid-3rd century in parts of Moesia. To legitimize and solidify his claim he may have wanted to hand out donatives to his supporters, perhaps even local chieftains. Without access to an official mint, he may have ordered local craftsmen to manufacture a small number of gold pieces that were too crude to pass as official mint production, but which superficially resembled Roman coins enough to serve as replacement in a donation ceremony. To me the alternative looks less likely. Hence, I cannot really imagine somebody in the late 17th or early 18th century producing massively overweight, apparently cast and crude looking gold coins with the name of a fantasy Roman emperor. What would be the motivation for that? Do we know of similar forgeries of that time?

I found the coin below on Ebay. It is an Antoninian of Herennius Etruscus, with the rare VICTORIA GERMANICA reverse. Obv.: IMP C Q HER ETR MES DECIO AVG Rev.: VICTORIA GERMANICA In May 251 Herennius Etruscus was elevated to the rank of Augustus by his father Trajan Decius. In the summer of 251 (June to August) Trajan Decius and his son were killed in the battle of Abrittus against the Goths. Hence, the coin can be dated to a few months between May and August 251. The time between May 251, i.e. the elevation to Augustus and the start of the fateful campaign against the Goths in June 251 leaves very little time for a significant victory over the Germanic people. I think there are two possible explanations: The celebratory issue refers to the victory at Nicopolis ad Istrum in 250, against the Goths. Although the Goths were linguistically and culturally Germans, i.e. Germanic people, the Romans distinguished on the basis of geography between Goths at the lower Danube and Germans (Franci and Alamanni) at the upper Danube and Rhine. The reference on this coin may be an example of a departure from that practice, maybe the name Goths was not yet well established in the Roman public perception to be used on a coin. The first appearance of the name Goths on Roman coins came only some 20 years later unter Claudius II. The celebratory issue refers to an earlier victory over Germanic tribes at upper Danube or Rhine. The victory may have been quite insignificant to go unnoticed in the written sources, but may have been envoked at the start of the Gothic campaign to boost confidence. However, it would have been much easier and relevant to refer to the significant victory over the Goths at Nicopolis in the previous year for this purpose. So I think, option one is preferable. If correct, this is quite significant for historiography. In any case, the issue was likely shortlived and small, as these coins are quite rare today. The coin below is not just distinguished by its rare reverse, it is also one of the best preserved examples of that type. Show us coins related to the events of AD 250/251, which arguably marked a turning point in the history of the Roman empire.

That is a really nice video. I was surprised to hear that even before the latest investigations, a majority of experts thought that the Sponsian coins were old (in the sense of 1800 years old). My understanding was that most experts believed them to be 17/18th century fakes. If that is correct, the results of the investigation of the surfaces and deposits should not have come as much of a surprise. I think the author of the video is right in pointing out that the way how the media reported about these results is questionable. I think nobody thinks that the coin was made by an official Roman mint. If the coin dates to the 3rd century, as the latest investigations would suggest, I can see two options regarding its origins: 1. Barbarians made the coin for non-monetary purposes. If true, the coin would fit in with a large corpus of similar imitations from the same region where the two Sponsian coins have been found. 2. An otherwise unknown usurper named Sponsianus, with no access to an official mint, tried to bolster his claim to the throne, by having local jewelers make a few coins as presentation pieces (perhaps to buy the loyalty of local elites). If the coin really is from the 3rd century, I think the second option is more likely than the first.

I think style does not help in this case. In my view, there is not such thing as a "right" or "wrong" style of barbarous imitations of this corpus (i.e. south eastern Europe 3rd/4th century). I have 23 gold imitations (most of them recorded on this website by a Ukrainian numismatist): КАТАЛОГ ВАРВАРСКИХ ПОДРАЖАНИЙ РИМСКИМ МОНЕТАМ - 346-365 (narod.ru) These coins are all genuine ancient coins. Can anybody identify the correct barbarous style? Indeed, I see some stylistic similarities between the SPONSIAN aureus and coin no. 359, but that is almost not surprising since any kind of style can be found here. Unfortunately, also the fact that the coin was cast does not mean that it is not ancient. Cast imitations do exist within the corpus of 3rd/4th century aureus imitations from south-eastern European. So if style and manufacture are not helpful. I would say this about the SPONSIAN aureus: The coin was clearly not produced by an official Roman mint and in my view, it does not prove the existance of an emperor called SPONSIAN. If it is ancient, it belongs to a large corpus of 3rd/4th century gold imitations from south-eastern Europe. But again, when evaluating its antiquity we can not rely on "style" and "manufacture". Style and manufacture are of no relevance in the case of barbarous imitations. The only hard evidence that can be evaluated are the results of the technical analysis. But I'm not qualified to do so. The only other evidence that can be evaluated, in my view, are: 1) the circumstances that brought the coin to Glasgow in 1713. I.e. How likely is it that somebody produced such a fake at that time? 2) the position of the coin in numismatic history. I.e. How likely is it that somebody produced a fake in the early 18th centuy, with the name of an unknown emperor and which fits into a large corpus of coins, which was only recognized in the 20. century? Put differently, the probability of the coin being a fake would in my view be a lot higher if it had been found in other parts of the empire or its border regions. So for me, the coin is plausibly part of the large corpus of imitative gold imitations from 3rd/4th century south-eastern Europe. Definite proof would be the discovery of another example from the same region. Until then we only have the technical evidence from the study and the other evidence under 1) and 2) above to form an opinion. PS: The coin B: Type 3 Gordian III is in my view genuine. I have seen the dies before on a Ukrainian detectorist website.

The price of USD 5 in 1918 suggests that it was valued for its gold content only. because a 10 dollar gold coin weighed about 8.3 gr. However, the current estimate of USD 485 is about twice the value of the gold content. Had the coin be valued only for its gold content, as in 1918 the estimate should have been about USD 260. Hence, the difference between USD 5 and USD 260 is the devaluation of the dollar since 1918. So the difference between the price of USD 5 in 1918 and the current estimate of USD 485 is due to two factors: 1. The devaluation of the dollar 2. The appreciation of the numismatic/collecting value of the coin.

That is definetely true. I think it is often underappreciated just under how much stress the empire was around the middle of the 3rd century. During this period large cities, which were often situated at a long distance from the borders fell into ruins, or were partially abandonded with civic buildings like theaters and temples being dismantled for the fortification of smaller core settlements. Lutetia (Paris) is just one of several Roman towns that experienced rapid decline during that period. Against this background its is not surprising that the quality of minting coins deteriorated too. But there are of course exceptions, as we have seen above. Here is another example of a well made coin of Valerian from the mint of Viminacium: Obv.: IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG Rev.: FIDES MILITVM Mint: Viminacium Year: AD 253 Weight: 4.06 MIR 792d

The coins shown above are fascinating. The Roman Republic is not really my area of collecting. However, I put in a low bid on the coin below and was surprised that I won it. AR-Didrachme/Quadrigatus Weight: 6.67g Date: 225 - 214 BC

There were no kings of Wallachia, only Woiwodes. Wallachia was not a kingdom.

This is really a good joke. The WRL on this coin stands for "Westair Reproduction Limited" 🙂

This Gothisnia is a fantasy state that never existed.

No, here is a genuine example from Arles:

You are basically arguing for some kind of (socialist) utopia, where everybody has complete knowledge of everybody elses' financial situations and preferences. Reality is different. A free price mechanism is the best and fairest way for allocating scarce resources, such as ancient coins under the conditions of imperfect information. Prices are signals of scarcity. A high price tells people that the good is scarce and some people should refrain from acquiring the good, because it is beyond their means. It does not say anything about who deserves it and who doesn't. It makes no moral judgement. Still the price mechanism is social in a sense. By reserving a scarce and highly priced good for the rich, their demand gets diverted away from less scarce goods, leaving more of these goods at lower prices to the people with less spending power. Imagine in your example, Richie Rich does not buy the coin, but leaves it to Poorie Poor to acquire, this does not mean that Richie Rich does not spend his funds. He will divert it to other coins, thus raising the demand and hence the price of these coins. More than 200 years of economic insight (infact its more like 600 years) tells us that there is nothing that can beat a functioning price system. A French economist named Frederic Bastiat wondered in the 19. century in an essay called "How Paris is fed" how it is possible for all these people of Paris to be fed each day without any central administration organizing food production and distribution. His answer of course is the price mechanism.

I think it is an elaborate artistic interpretation of sideburns. Something like a pre-beard which appears on coins depicted adolescent emperors, aged 15 to 20 years. I'm quite certain the coin is genuine.

The siliqua with the sideburns is spectacular. I think this type of facial hairstyle was meant to signify adolescent age. Here is a common coin of Crispus, which, rather unusually for Crispus also shows these sideburns. FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES // PROVIDEN-TIAE CAESS Mint: Rome weight: 3.1g

Here is another Volusian from my collection. A common type, but EF and a portrait of the finest style Obv.: IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG Rev.: AEQVITAS AVGG Mint: Rome Year: 253 (?) RIC IV 166