Marsyas Mike

The mint didn't do a very good job with this one, but it's the thought that counts - Christ the King:

I just got skunked on eBay for a Sardinian Crimean medal - it was going for five bucks! Unfortunately, I'm not the only one to spot it...otherwise I would've opened up this thread again. These were issued by Turkey for France, England and Sardinia. The boat sank with most of the English medals, so a lot of English soldiers got the Sardinian medal. Here it is, mis-described - not an "etched" coin, but rather a struck medal: 1854 Turkey Silver 20 Karush. w/Crimean War Alliance Etching. Rare! https://www.ebay.com/itm/204571194851 Thank you for the kind words!

Nice pair of animals, @Tejas As for mine, I need an upgrade...

Thanks for sharing those, @JayAg47. I have a few Severan limes - all "silver" though. Here's my favorite - a posthumous Sept. Severus:

Me too!

So another spectacular rarity (har) from eBay came my way. Seller took decent photos, but no indication of size. An As issued for Julia Domna with Diana in a biga on the reverse - an interesting, desirable type. Bidding was ferocious and I got it for $4.74 (plus shipping). Seller shipped quickly (from Canada) and I ripped open the envelope like Ralphie on Christmas morning, only to find the thing was, in the words of Monty Python, "wafer thin" - at 22 mm it was somewhat small for the type, but the weight - 3.13 grams is way too light to be a plausible as, even during the Severan era. Not even close. Here it is: It doesn't look too bad - and the hints of metal under the patina look very much like brass - so a grossly underweight dupondius to boot? Fake, I said to myself, sadly. Normally I wouldn't pester the Forum with junk like this, but here's the weird thing - looking (without much hope) on acsearch, I found three - yes, three - die-matches for this coin, all freakishly light weight. I'm a scrounger, I admit it, but these auction houses are supposed to be experts. Naumann: "very light specimen" https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10412707 Roma: no comment, but Israel export noted: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5576800 and (same coin) https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6973747 Paul-Francis Jacquier: "Sehr schön Zu ähnlichen Gußprägungen (Limesfalsa) aus der Severer-Zeit vgl. Jacquier 31, 2003, 316 (As des Caracalla) sowie Jacquier 23, 1999, 506 (As des Geta). Es scheinen nur Limesfalsa gallischer Herkunft bekannt zu sein" (translation: "Very nice For similar cast coins (limesfalsa) from the Severan period, see Jacquier 31, 2003, 316 (As of Caracalla) as well Jacquier 23, 1999, 506 (As des Geta). Only Limesfalsa of Gallic origin seem to be known." https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2120661 and https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1670048 Here's comparison photos - die-matches, but they don't look like mass-produced modern cast fakes, based on flan centering, ancient crud, etc. The die-work is quite good, in my opinion - I especially like the horses. And if you were faking these nowadays for the collector market, why not boost the weight and make them plausible? Any thoughts? Any Severan experts out there aware of this sort of thing? I always thought limes were exclusively silver, but there were a ton of Claudius AE imitations minted in Gaul in the first century. Did this happen again, as Jacquier suggests, in Severian-era Gaul? Are these supposed to be quadrans? Please share.

This is interesting. Thank you for sharing the knowledge and the coins @seth77 Here is what I think is an Antioch early portrait of Severus Alexander - I posted it on CT a few years ago and the consensus was "Eastern" rather than "Rome." This is the third or fourth ancient I ever purchased, long ago: Severus Alexander Denarius (222-223 A.D.) Antioch or Eastern Mint IMP C M AVR S[EV AL]EXAND AVG, laureate, draped bust right / PIETAS AVG Pietas standing left, holding right hand over altar, incense box in left arm. RIC IV 292; BMCRE 1057. (2.75 grams / 19 x 16 mm) Columbus, Ohio c. 1987 $23.00

I know! But I thought everybody liked Marcus Aurelius?

The sestertius version of Philip I "the Arab" Adventus issue, just in this past week - it is pretty nice for one of mine, but the edges have been bashed in here and there - some auctions like to call this a gaming piece conversion, but I don't know, I wasn't there and I didn't do it: Philip I Æ Sestertius (245 A.D.) Rome Mint (2nd Officina; 4th emission) IMP M IVL PHILIPPVS AVG, laureate, draped, cuirassed bust right / ADVENTVS AVGG SC in exergue | Philip on horse pacing left, raising right hand, holding spear (sceptre) in left RIC IV 165; Cohen RSC 6. (18.92 grams / 29 x 26 mm) eBay Nov. 2023 MAW Note: Dates, emission info: CNG: "Rome mint, 2nd officina. 4th emission, AD 245." and "holding scepter" RIC IV 165 corr. (horse left, not right); Banti 2. British Museum: has six, but with no BMCRE numbers. Die-Match Obverse: Classical Numismatic Group Electronic Auction 531; Lot 1155; 25.01.2023

And in any case, you call that a nick? Now here's a nick for ya - I bought this on eBay because I really loved the overall appearance. The giant obverse gash appears to be ancient, as it is toned/patinated along with the rest of the coin.

Gee whiz! I like it! A nick like this doesn't bother me at all. But then I'm a coin-slob... Does it matter that it is mis-attributed? It was sold as RIC 38 (136 specimens in OCRE). But the legends on yours match RIC 54 (18 specimens) - meaning yours is rarer? There is also RIC 47 (8 specimens) that seems identical to RIC 54, but OCRE often baffles me this way. So, again, I think yours might be far scarcer than the as sold attribution? RIC 38: C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M TR POT RIC 54: C CAESAR DIVI AVG PRON AVG P M TR P IIII P P http://numismatics.org/ocre/results?q=deity_facet%3A"Vesta"+AND+portrait_facet%3A"Gaius%2FCaligula"

Great coins in this thread. Here's a couple showing Juno in her shrine - Trebonianus Gallus and Volusion sestertii.

Just in the mail, this very worn sestertius showing the adorable young monster Caracalla on both sides. I've not attributed it yet, but I think it is RIC IV Caracalla 398A dated to 196-197 AD (per OCRE). This may be one of my top tens for 2023 - despite the massive wear, it has a wonderful green patina with dusty-desert highlights around the devices.

Gee, I wish you'd do all my coin photography - that color adjustment is an improvement in terms of seeing detail. That tiny pimple at 10/11 o'clock obverse is interesting - I hadn't noticed it before. I had noticed the lumpy truncation/drapery area at the bottom of the bust, but have no idea what it means. If these are fake, they don't seem to be cast (as I've said before) - especially the Hirsch with its overstrike on a Philip. I don't understand the mind of the counterfeiter, but this seems like a lot of work to go too for only two examples showing up on the market in 10 years (and one of them somehow winding up on eBay for $50). But some of them play the long game, I suppose. Maybe some more will show up on the market. Thank you for the effort you put into looking this over. Even fake, this is interesting.

Thank you for looking into this - this is good to know, if not what I wanted to hear! Although I'm not an expert, I am still somewhat puzzled by the "style" argument, especially for the portrait. The variations I've seen are numerous - like I said before, like Valerian, who never really has a firmed up "look" the way, say, Philip I does. My Pacatian portrait (and the Hirsch) just doesn't look like an outlier. "Art criticism" opinion only! So the Hirsch is overstruck on a Philip? I hadn't seen that - it looked double-struck to me, rather than a strike-over. But now that I look more carefully - yep, that's Philip's chin, and furthermore, that's PHILIPP... faintly in the field. Interesting! I feel kind of dumb for not noticing that. Thanks for sending that FORVM link - I had not seen it.

Yes, that Persian sword is a fake. But the many ancient coins he's listing look okay, if overpriced. I saw that Albinus...if fake, it is not (to me) an obvious fake. And to be fair, that is really not a "fake slab" - it is just a slab-like holder. There's no grading/authentic-izing information on it. My "Pacatianus" came in a similar slab with Gordian identification taped to the outside, which is hardly an effort to fake NCG plastic.

It occurred to me last night that the discussion in this thread alone might give this thing, even a fake, a "patina of interest" that could elevate it to the mid-two figures! How's that for wishful thinking! Please note that I have copyrighted "patina of interest" - a new category for iffy, probably fake, and eBay-scrounged coins.

Oh, do I wish it is a "realie" (my new favorite word). The Forgery Network example looks cast, mushy to me. Thanks again for your comments.

The seller has a lot of ancients for sale, some of them incorrectly described, but most if not all of them look genuine to me. Most are very common, fairly low grade AEs with some silver, both Greek and Roman. Some of the auctions are lots. It's a USA seller, but it looks as if he might have a European source (rather than a USA collector's estate sale) - but I'm guessing, based on the quantities involved and the missing or wrong attributions. I find these kinds of sellers to be a lot of fun to look through - to be sure, most of the stuff isn't worth a bid, but sometimes good stuff comes up. Some of the other auctions are tempting, but they are all priced very high for what they are ($70 for a Gordian antoninianus in the condition the Pacatianus is in gives you some idea!). He does take offers though, which is how I got it for $50. I've never sent off anything for verification, but this one might be worth finding out about, good or bad!

Thank you for that thorough and thoughtful analysis. Among the many fine points you bring up, you do hit on something I've been pondering for years, not only about this coin, but in general - if you are a counterfeiter of ancient coins, why would you make one extra-cruddy? This is why I enjoy looking at Becker's forgeries - he was really good - in a way that is not easily done, he managed to get the look of ancient portraiture and lettering. However, he was an artist, and putting such artistry on a lousy canvas (so to speak) was hard for him to do, apparently. Which is why Becker's coins to me almost always look implausibly minty fresh. More contemporary fakes tend to be too nice too - take a look at Marc Antony galley denarii on acsearch. I'm no expert, but these big auction houses seem to be selling scads of minty fresh Marc Antonys that look as phony as three dollar bills to me. No, I'm no expert, but something like this just doesn't look right: Emporium Hamburg, with apologies, but the boat side looks pressed to me, not struck. Which is why I like what few rarities that come my way to be on the ugly side. Back when I was collecting modern countermarks, I was very enthusiastic about the Azores crowned G.P countermarks of 1887, which can be found on a fascinating array of coins. Unfortunately for every genuine example there are 50 fakes. Which is why I preferred the ones I got to be holed, or worn almost smooth. It's no guarantee, but so many of the fake Azores are too good to be true. As for the Pacatian, if mine is a die-match to the Hirsch example (which I think is a safe bet), then it is obvious that these were struck, not cast, thanks to the dramatic doubling of the obverse on the Hirsch. Mine is too thin to see a casting seam if there was one, but I think mine was struck too. And why strike only two (in ten years - the Hirsch auction was in 2014) with such wildly-differing appearance in terms of the flan and strike? Some very patient, crafty counterfeiting work for sure. Your observations on the general economic situation of those days are really thought-provoking - I hope somebody digs up a marble inscription from the mint of Viminacium (or wherever) with a list of Pacatian's mint officials, assigned to Officinae, with formulae on how to prepare the flans. Also, with a few dies found in a broken pot buried under the floor. Until then... Again, thank you. P. S. I did find two Pacatians on the Forgery Network. Here's one with Barry Murphy's comments - the obverse does look a lot like mine (uh oh): Identified by CFDL including Barry Murphy and Others. "Most telling is the flan of this coin, it isn't even close to an authentic flan. Pacatians never ever come on perfectly round flans and almost always have edge irregularities. This coin is also not a barbarous imitation of a Pacatian. Seldom if ever do you find barbarous imitations of coins issued by short-lived usurpers. Their coins were almost always recalled and probably devalued, it would not have made much sense to copy a coin you couldn't spend. This coin is clearly cast, but cast from what?". See above link for more information https://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=dp~x~pBToaYZM=

Very well argued and observed! Thank you for posting this - and thanks too for PM'ing me at first with your reservations. The one aspect of these observations I'm somewhat iffy on is the portrait - the Pacatians I've seen have a fairly wide array of styles and features, with mine not seeming (to me) all that out of line with others. Here are a few I pulled off acsearch, mine on top (the first two auctions are CNG) What strikes me is the short (for a Roman) nose, the long upper lip, and the deep-set eyes, small knobby chin - which all seem a common feature for many of the ones I'm seeing online: Variations for sure, but the nose-upper lip-eye-chin have a lot in common. As @Claudius_Gothicus notes what the group above reminds me of most are the issues of Valerian - whereas Gordian and Philip tend to have distinctive, easily-identified portraits, Valerian's "look" wobbles all over the place. Some of those Pacatians above look about 60, others (bottom) about 28! But I don't know - judging artwork (portraits) is a subjective thing. And of course getting the portrait right doesn't mean it still isn't a fake, alas. Again, thank you @Claudius_Gothicus for taking the trouble to analyze this coin.

Thanks for that - I seem to recall when I was trying to attribute it, I wasn't able to find a head-size pattern that made any sense to me.

That's a great selection of Carthage issues, @maridvnvm Just this past week I got a Carthage follis for Maximian - I was surprised at how big and heavy it was in hand: Maximianus Follis (Æ 27) (297-298 A.D.) Carthage Mint IMP MAXIMIANVS P F AVG, laureate head right / FELIX AD-V-ENT AVGG NN, Africa standing facing, holding standard and elephant's tusk, lion with captured bull at feet, B in left field | PKS in exergue. RIC VI Carthage 21b. (11.36 grams / 27 x 26 mm) eBay Nov. 2023 Note: "The coinage from Carthage struck during this period references the campaign against the Quinquegentiani as the mint was only opened because of the war. When Maximianus arrived in Carthage sometime in 296- 297, he needed to open a mint to have funds to pay for the war. The types struck in Carthage were also specific to the city and not struck anywhere else in the Empire." www.constantinethegreatcoins.com Here's a little one for Maximian with some quality issues: Maximianus Æ 20 (Post-Reform Radiate) (c. 303 A.D.) Carthage Mint IMP C MAXIMIAN[VS P F AVG] radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / VOT | X [•?] X | FK within wreath RIC VI Carthage 37b. (3.00 grams / 20 x 17 mm) eBay July 2020 Note: "Carthage also struck some fractional bronze coinage-- VOT X (for Caesars) and VOT XX (for Augustii) c. A.D. 303 to celebrate anniversaries. These coins have an FK on the reverse for FELIX KARTHAGO-- Happy Carthage." www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/Carthage/ Finally, I have this one for Diocletian - I am a bit wobbly on the attribution based on the head size: Diocletian Æ Follis (298-303 A.D.) Carthage Mint IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG, laureate head right / SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART, Carthage standing front, looking left, holding fruits in both hands, A in exergue. RIC VI Carthage 29a/31a. (9.08 grams / 27 x 24 mm) eBay June 2022 Attribution Notes: RIC VI 29a - small head type (298-299 A.D.) RIC VI 31a - large head type (299-303 A.D.) "RIC states "Elmer, N.Z.1932, divided this issue into two sections, with portraits small or less small and with Carthago thin or larger -- distinctions which are very difficult to maintain. It is likely that, if the issue was of any duration, these differences came about to some extent by natural variation and development."" Constantine the Great Coins

You're right - ants from that period seem to have been hoarded right away, since the silver content was going so low so fast. If Pacatianus issues were more debased than, say Philip's, it is possible that, like Marc Antony denarii, they circulated more, since they were inferior. But sometimes ants did circulate - one of my favorite Gordians is this one, VG or so from wear (not worn-out dies):

Thank you for your comments, @JeandAcre. You are absolutely right - I've already had at least $50 worth of fun researching this coin and reading all the responses it provoked. Undescribed or misdescribed ancients are pretty much my favorite way to collect these days, and this one has been a real thrill (though of course I'd rather it was really a Pacatianus!).