Pompey denarius. Opinions sought from more advanced collectors than me.

[Dafydd]

Over several years I have traded many coins with a collector who I have no doubt is honest but unfortunately his vast collection contains some fakes. Fortunately I have never suffered loss as he bought from "reputable" dealers and they have been passed back up the line. My fake Julius Caesar lifetime portrait last year came from this source and was returned without loss to me. I suspect he has spent so much money with certain dealers they would not argue if he has third party verification as there are reputations at stake.

Because of his age, the collector has sold several hundred coins at major auctions in the last three years, all of which were in the public domain and sold without withdrawals although some coins were not entered because of doubts. Overall given the percentage of fakes with the total quantity of coins in the collection his position could be worse but I guess the small number of fakes are always high value. His collection is not exclusively ancient but he has/had a major collection of British hammered coins, particularly of Civil War ( 17th Century ) issue and is not computer literate so unable to research as most of us can.

This coin is the latest potential deal and my concerns are the low weight of 3.43 gms and the potential of it being cast. The diameter is 18.8 mm. I have only seen two lower weights in my research. The coin was originally purchased from a dealer several years ago who is still trading.

I have searched the Forum archives and the Toronto Group fakes archive but cannot find this specific coin. It occurs to me that if you are faking a coin , the amount of effort taken would encourage you to make more than one and this coin was originally bought a decade ago.

I am not expert enough to say "yes cast fake" as I have seen some coins which I thought were doubtful but regarded as fine by my peers. 

I would really welcome opinions on this although my concerns have motivated the post.

Sometimes it is easy to be reckless when you really want something to work out.....

Thank you.

 

Crawford 447/1a; HCRI 8; Sydenham 1033; RSC 3.

 

 

[John Conduitt]

It's the sort of coin where you need someone who knows the variety of styles, but I can see why you're suspicious. There are no examples on CRRO with such a poor style on obverse or reverse. The dolphin's body is too thin and what is going on with its nose?

[Dafydd]

11 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

It's the sort of coin where you need someone who knows the variety of styles, but I can see why you're suspicious. There are no examples on CRRO with such a poor style on obverse or reverse. The dolphin's body is too thin and what is going on with its nose?

Good point @John Conduitt It looks more like an eel than a dolphin but then why would a forger be so stupid not to replicate a more conventional dolphin? There is a similarly light example in the British Museum but I can't load the image. Maybe mine was stolen along with the rest of things that disappeared over recent years? 

[Sebastian]

For me it’s a fake coin. Look at my exemplar (it’s from Saltons collection, bought on Kuenker auction) it looks nearly like a different coin. 
 

 

[Dafydd]

1 minute ago, Sebastian said:

For me it’s a fake coin. Look at my exemplar (it’s from Saltons collection, bought on Kuenker auction) it looks nearly like a different coin. 
 

 

I certainly couldn't disagree with the fact that they are worlds apart @Sebastian,thank you for stepping into the debate.

[red_spork]

For me at best it's an ancient forgery/imitation. Certainly not official. I don't really like it at all. Sorry

Edited May 20 by red_spork

[John Conduitt]

33 minutes ago, Dafydd said:

Good point @John Conduitt It looks more like an eel than a dolphin but then why would a forger be so stupid not to replicate a more conventional dolphin? There is a similarly light example in the British Museum but I can't load the image. Maybe mine was stolen along with the rest of things that disappeared over recent years? 

I don't think it's being stupid, rather it's too difficult to replicate the work of an ancient Roman engraver in short enough time for the value of the coin. They only need to trick one person, not everyone, and this was good enough.

[CPK]

The surfaces don't look right - they have that shiny cast look to them. Also, is that a casting seam I'm seeing from 9 to 12 o'clock on the last photo?

[DonnaML]

The photos of the obverse are too dark for me to see well enough on my phone to form an opinion. But I'd be very wary based on the reverse alone. I just scrolled through the 165 examples of the type on acsearch, and didn't see a single reverse on which the dolphin's head and the upper portion of its body were as thin as this, the beak was this long and curved up at the tip, or the lower jaw was noticeably separate from, and was shorter than, the upper jaw. In other words, this dolphin's mouth is open, whereas it appears to be closed on all other examples. 

[Ryro]

I believe I see a casting seem, but would need images of the sides/ edges to know for sure. Though that's not my only concern. 

I recommend returning.

 

[ominus1]

...i'm sorry but it lQQks to be  a copy to me also....:(

Edited May 21 by ominus1

[traveler]

The style is hideous. It would not fool any auction house specialising in ancients, or even a collector who has looked at genuine examples.

Compare to a genuine example below, (not my coin), especially the eagle and dolphin on reverse. They allude to Pompey's victories on land and sea, but the dolphin on the OP coin looks more like a snake. The eagle in turn looks more like a chicken.

My guess is that it's a product of poorly engraved modern dies. Maybe a cast of a fake.

Edited May 21 by traveler
More details.

[kevikens]

I probably would pass on it if I saw it at a show. It's not the weight that is a problem. I do have a denarius issued by his son with the father's image on it. The fabric  is wretched but at that point Sextus was in big trouble with his faction about to crumble. The weight of my denarius is quite close to yours. I know some don't like it when collectors of ancients pass up on a coin just because of the way it looks but after a few decades of viewing and handling these coins' one does get a feel for them.

[Carausius]

Both obverse and reverse style are wrong for this type.  I strongly suspect it's a modern forgery, though maybe an old one (19th century - early 20th century), because the toning looks natural. 

[Dafydd]

Thank you all and the matter is closed for me now and I won't be proceeding. This is a vast field and enthusiasm can sometimes  overtake common sense. As Sangat said " If you seek the truth, you cannot hold an opinion" and I sought the truth from my peers because my opinion was it was fake but I was open to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks to everyone who contributed as I can now confirm my opinion.

[Prieure de Sion]

There are many arguments against the coin, but very few in its favour. Sorry, but I would keep my hands off it.