Sponsian? You gotta be kidding me... right?

[Tejas]

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.

 

 

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

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.

 

 

Dirk, You seem to be "sitting on the fence"😏. Do you think the coin is a product of the 3rd century AD or a modern creation of the 18th century AD 🤨? We all know the barbarians made fantasy coins of gold not necessarily for circulation, & I believe you have examples in your own collection 😉.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Al Kowsky
added info

[CPK]

As an amateur, all I can say is that to my eyes everything about those coins looks fake - cast not struck, weird portrait style and inscription, strange reverse. If these coins had just showed up on eBay instead I bet everyone would be saying they're clumsy fakes. 😜

I don't know whether or not Sponsian existed, but if these coins are all the evidence we have it looks pretty shaky to me.

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Al Kowsky said:

Dirk, You seem to be "sitting on the fence"😏. Do you think the coin is a product of the 3rd century AD or a modern creation of the 18th century AD 🤨? We all know the barbarians made fantasy coins of gold not necessarily for circulation, & I believe you have examples in your own collection 😉.

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?

 

 

[Briac]

Hi guys, 

if you are on facebook there is a great analysis made by Nick Vaneerdewegh (senior numismatis near Leu) on the group "Ancient & medieval coins" 

I also asked some questions to the author on "cointalk" because I found problems in his publication and I'm waiting his answer 

Since i got some of the so called Sponsianus coins in hand a few years ago I can tell you to my eyes  those are modern forgeries

[ominus1]

..haha..i was just watching a vid on utube about ' this dude Sponasian... commented 'i like to keep an open mind with a good dose of skepticism...'   ^^

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

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 agree with your speculation 😉.

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Briac said:

Hi guys, 

if you are on facebook there is a great analysis made by Nick Vaneerdewegh (senior numismatis near Leu) on the group "Ancient & medieval coins" 

I also asked some questions to the author on "cointalk" because I found problems in his publication and I'm waiting his answer 

Since i got some of the so called Sponsianus coins in hand a few years ago I can tell you to my eyes  those are modern forgeries

How about posting photos of these coins that "you had in hand"🤨.

[Briac]

If you want it, may your wishes be granted.

here is the only one I took since I was at the Bibliothèque Nationale for the Gordian's coinage, it was my 1st visit in the museum for my book

axe 0-6 28.40mm
axe 3-9 27.31mm
weight 13.73g

picture took in oct. 2010 with hundreds of other coins of Gordian I, Gordian II, Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III and Tranquillina

Happy?

[John Conduitt]

4 hours ago, Tejas said:

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?

While this is a sensible conclusion standing alone, it leaves out some of the many glaring questions that still haven't been answered (certainly not by the authors), including those in the video above:

- Why did they make casts when they'd already made dies? If Sponsian was shortlived, he needed coins quickly - so just strike them like everyone else. If you don't have access to a mint or skilled workers, how are you making dies?
- Why did they also make a fake Philip I and Gordian III? Why did they use imagery from the Republic and not just take casts of real Roman coins? That's just a waste of time and effort. Local craftsmen didn't have time for that. Sponsian didn't have time for that. If Sponsian wanted a few crude coins for a donation ceremony, they would've all been the same.

These questions are also there for any barbarous mint. I'm more inclined to believe they are barbarous, but why would they go to all that unnecessary trouble? Any why haven't any been found elsewhere?

I'm not saying they're modern forgeries. But the motivation of a modern forger is easy. Did a collector mention they wanted a coin no-one else had? Perhaps a previously unknown emperor? The forger wouldn't have seen any such coins, so came up with these fantasy pieces from what he had to hand. It's an unknown emperor, so there isn't a weight standard or manufacturing method to copy. (It was also 300 years ago, and numismatics was not yet a science. Science wasn't even a science).

[singig]

I followed the discussion here and the one on CoinTalk , I also read a good part of the study , my personal opinion as a simple collector is that the coins of Sponsian are products of the antiquity , the style is barbarous for sure  , but in that tumultuous period(Carpi invasions) even the official mint of Dacia(probable location at Apulum) has produced coins in the same amazing 😊 style (examples below). Of course the proof that the coins are ancient does not certify the existence of this so called emperor Sponsian , he can be a real character ..... as he can be even a fantasy of the engraver.

I have found on internet photos with a second specimen of Sponsian , is the one from Brukenthal National Museum , Baron Samuel von Brukenthal was the governor of Transylvania at that time , also he was a passionate art collector. This specimen is in better grade that the one from Glasgow museum , from the comparison below we can see similarities between the two coins , both obverses were cast from the same mould , and if the explanation from the study is right the reverses should be made from different moulds , this is the explanation:    ''  ‘hub slips’ such as on the reverse of GLAHM:40333 where the hub seems to have moved during soft impression, causing smearing of the outline and repeated impression of parts of the design...''. When I first saw the Glasgow specimen, my impression was that the reverse is double-struck.

Photos from acsearch.info , provincial coins of Valerian I and Gallienus  , reverse legend PROVINCIA DACIA

Edited November 30, 2022 by singig

[Al Kowsky]

8 hours ago, singig said:

I followed the discussion here and the one on CoinTalk , I also read a good part of the study , my personal opinion as a simple collector is that the coins of Sponsian are products of the antiquity , the style is barbarous for sure  , but in that tumultuous period(Carpi invasions) even the official mint of Dacia(probable location at Apulum) has produced coins in the same amazing 😊 style (examples below). Of course the proof that the coins are ancient does not certify the existence of this so called emperor Sponsian , he can be a real character ..... as he can be even a fantasy of the engraver.

I have found on internet photos with a second specimen of Sponsian , is the one from Brukenthal National Museum , Baron Samuel von Brukenthal was the governor of Transylvania at that time , also he was a passionate art collector. This specimen is in better grade that the one from Glasgow museum , from the comparison below we can see similarities between the two coins , both obverses were cast from the same mould , and if the explanation from the study is right the reverses should be made from different moulds , this is the explanation:    ''  ‘hub slips’ such as on the reverse of GLAHM:40333 where the hub seems to have moved during soft impression, causing smearing of the outline and repeated impression of parts of the design...''. When I first saw the Glasgow specimen, my impression was that the reverse is double-struck.

Photos from acsearch.info , provincial coins of Valerian I and Gallienus  , reverse legend PROVINCIA DACIA

singig, Your photos of the Brukenthal coin make a valuable comparison of the two gold coins 😊. I think we can conclude that both coins were made from the same molds/dies & the theory that the reverse die slipped during the manufacturing process, creating a double impression of the reverse, seems very probable. The clarity of the Brukenthal reverse is impressive & poses the question, what are we looking at 🤔? The composition looks like a ritual scene of some kind. Is the figure on top of the column Sponsian or a diety? Thanks for posting this group of photos 😉.

[Tejas]

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?

[Tejas]

11 hours ago, Briac said:

If you want it, may your wishes be granted.

here is the only one I took since I was at the Bibliothèque Nationale for the Gordian's coinage, it was my 1st visit in the museum for my book

axe 0-6 28.40mm
axe 3-9 27.31mm
weight 13.73g

picture took in oct. 2010 with hundreds of other coins of Gordian I, Gordian II, Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III and Tranquillina

Happy?

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.

[John Conduitt]

22 minutes ago, Nick said:

That seems to be the real problem—how do you have a double strike or die slip on a cast coin, unless the mold was made from an original coin that featured those issues?  This is why I’ve asked if the casting bubbles could be the result of a really unprofessional flan preparation then struck.

37 minutes ago, Tejas said:

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?

This is directly from the paper:
"...our observations strongly support the suggestion that all the disputed coins were cast from moulds impressed by a master design, conventionally called a ‘hub’. Evidence includes: a general lack of surface detail; small roughly circular pits which are interpreted as relict air bubbles; irregular edges to some features indicating incomplete filling of the mould; irregular cracking and flaking away of parts of the upper surfaces on all the questionable coins, indicating instability of the original cast surfaces; curvilinear surface cracking patterns interpreted as caused by rapid cooling against the mould; widespread reddish-brown residues on the same coin in and around these cracks that are interpreted as the mould adhering in places; and ‘hub slips’ where the hub seems to have moved during soft impression, causing smearing of the outline and repeated impression of parts of the design. Finally, the two Philip medallions in our study differ in aspect ratio by about 10% indicating horizontal plastic compression of the obverse and reverse designs. Similar compression can be seen in published photographs of some of the others, which may point to a small-batch manufacturing process wherein wet clay moulds were aligned vertically and tightened laterally in frames before firing."

[Tejas]

12 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

While this is a sensible conclusion standing alone, it leaves out some of the many glaring questions that still haven't been answered (certainly not by the authors), including those in the video above:

- Why did they make casts when they'd already made dies? If Sponsian was shortlived, he needed coins quickly - so just strike them like everyone else. If you don't have access to a mint or skilled workers, how are you making dies?
- Why did they also make a fake Philip I and Gordian III? Why did they use imagery from the Republic and not just take casts of real Roman coins? That's just a waste of time and effort. Local craftsmen didn't have time for that. Sponsian didn't have time for that. If Sponsian wanted a few crude coins for a donation ceremony, they would've all been the same.

These questions are also there for any barbarous mint. I'm more inclined to believe they are barbarous, but why would they go to all that unnecessary trouble? Any why haven't any been found elsewhere?

I'm not saying they're modern forgeries. But the motivation of a modern forger is easy. Did a collector mention they wanted a coin no-one else had? Perhaps a previously unknown emperor? The forger wouldn't have seen any such coins, so came up with these fantasy pieces from what he had to hand. It's an unknown emperor, so there isn't a weight standard or manufacturing method to copy. (It was also 300 years ago, and numismatics was not yet a science. Science wasn't even a science).

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tejas

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

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. 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.

The Gordian III is in my view ancient albeit of course not official. It belongs 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, but 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'm not clear how the Brukenthal coin suggests it was struck. The authors of the research, who believe it is a real Sponsian coin, think it was cast and give an explanation for the die slippage. Presumably, this could be done on two different casts to give two results.

I haven't seen examples of the Gordian III from other locations, so that would be good to know. But if they come from a definite barbaric source, that disproves Sponsian. Unless Sponsian was a barbaric ruler.

I don't think that not having similar examples of forgeries from the C17-18 disproves it being a forger, since we don't have examples of anything that is the same - not barbaric, not provincial, not modern. Where is the similar provincial or usurper coin? In all these cases, why would anyone make a coin of 10g+ when they didn't need to? Or to put it another way, if they're just making up the difference with base metal, it doesn't really matter to any of them, since they are faking a gold coin. (A C17 forger, who might only get the gold value of the coin, is likely to make it as heavy as possible, and the recipient has no examples of Sponsian to compare it to).

I'm not convinced it is a modern forgery, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to go for any of the theories, or to disprove any of them.

Edited November 30, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:

I'm not clear how the Brukenthal coin suggests it was struck. The authors of the research, who believe it is a real Sponsian coin, think it was cast and give an explanation for the die slippage. Presumably, this could be done on two different casts to give two results.

I haven't seen examples of the Gordian III from other locations, so that would be good to know. But if they come from a definite barbaric source, that disproves Sponsian. Unless Sponsian was a barbaric ruler.

I don't think that not having similar examples of forgeries from the C17-18 disproves it being a forger, since we don't have examples of anything that is the same - not barbaric, not provincial, not modern. Where is the similar provincial or usurper coin? In all these cases, why would anyone make a coin of 10g+ when they didn't need to? Or to put it another way, if they're just making up the difference with base metal, it doesn't really matter to any of them, since they are faking a gold coin. (A C17 forger, who might only get the gold value of the coin, is likely to make it as heavy as possible, and the recipient has no examples of Sponsian to compare it to).

I'm not convinced it is a modern forgery, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to go for any of the theories, or to disprove any of them.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Briac]

17 hours ago, Nick said:

Do you think this could have been a poorly made flan that was subsequently struck, hence the casting bubbles?

I don't think so because to fill the head, the strike needs a minimum of force (the head is still at least 3mm thick) so to leave bubbles, you would need huge bubbles.

 

[Briac]

5 hours ago, Tejas said:

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.

 if you can find that data again, it would be realy helpfull for this analysis. are you speaking of violity auctions?

but thes "sponsianus" coins are not from the "aurum barbarorum" serie, the weight are too heavy  and more than anything els, aurum barbarorum coins ares not poor cast..

 

[Briac]

before talking about age of the coins, you should read this publication of 1923 about those coins 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_4hf9NVFLWkUGzLucDsapktTHzGM1Nd/view

[Dwarf]

In the meantime, I am very much inclined to Münsterberg's opinion of 1923 as cited by Briac
Has there ever been a hoard?

For the Non-German-speaking community the last paragraph:
 

Quote

After all this I consider with Cohen and Grueber all these coins, which by the way seem to me not struck but cast, as forgeries. The genuine stater of Alexander, which was included, should probably serve for the authentication of the authenticity of the "hoard".

Regards
Klaus

 

[Tejas]

3 hours ago, Briac said:

 if you can find that data again, it would be realy helpfull for this analysis. are you speaking of violity auctions?

but thes "sponsianus" coins are not from the "aurum barbarorum" serie, the weight are too heavy  and more than anything els, aurum barbarorum coins ares not poor cast..

 

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).

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tejas

[Tejas]

3 hours ago, Briac said:

 
but thes "sponsianus" coins are not from the "aurum barbarorum" serie, the weight are too heavy  and more than anything els, aurum barbarorum coins ares not poor cast..

 

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.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tejas

[Tejas]

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)

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tejas