Faustina Friday – Prepare to be Shocked! The Scandalous Secret the British Museum and the ANS Don’t Want You to Know!!

[Roman Collector]

Disclaimer: The title of today’s installment was purposely written to lampoon a “clickbait” article. In actuality, Richard Abdy of the British Museum was exquisitely professional in his response to this issue.

Some weeks ago, I noticed that TimeLine auctions had a cast fake sestertius of Faustina the Elder in their upcoming sale. To their credit, they described it as a "cast Paduan medallion," rather than a genuine ancient coin. Now, it isn't actually a Paduan; genuine Paduans are typically very round, have clean edges, and have a recognizable Renaissance style. Moreover, it isn't listed in Richard Hoe Lawrence's 1883 catalog of these medals or in C. Johnson & R. Martini's Milano, Civiche Raccolte Numismatische. Le Medaglie del secolo XVI. Cavino (Rome. 1989). Lastly, a true "Paduan" would only be in the sestertius denomination and this reverse type is known in the medium bronze and denarius denominations as well. It's just a plain old fake.

Faustina I, cast forgery of orichalcum sestertius, RIC 1114. TimeLine Auctions, Auction 160, lot 3496, 8 September 2024.

I put in a reasonable bid for a forgery – and got outbid by someone who probably thought they were buying an actual Paduan from Renaissance Italy – and decided to look for other specimens of the coin. I compared it to other known specimens and I found five additional cast forgeries with the same flan shape and centering. The fakes were not limited to coins sold at auctions. I identified fakes in trusted reference books and venerable collections, such as the ANS, Banti, and even the British Museum!!!

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. The gashes on the coin's surfaces were added after casting, almost certainly to hide the deception. Bolaffi, Auction 44, lot 555, 6 December 2023.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Jesús Vico, Auction 166, lot 188, 8 June 2023. Although the most detailed of the specimens, this cannot be a genuine "host" coin from which the others were cast because the gashes on the empress's neck and the defect in the F in FAVSTINA would have been transferred to all the other specimens. Rather, the defect in the F is likely a casting bubble. The "detail" may well be a result of tooling after casting.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. As in the case of the Bolaffi specimen, above, the gashes on the coin's reverse were added after casting, almost certainly to conceal the deception. Ars Classica 18, lot 252, 1938 = Banti p.12, 23.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.48983.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. British Museum, BMCRE 1505. A casting seam is visible along the upper rim on the obverse.

Yes, even the British Museum fell victim to this chicanery. You'll notice when you go to the British Museum's website, there is a "Give feedback" icon in the lower left corner. I knew the responsible thing was to give feedback to Richard Abdy about my concerns the museum specimen was a forgery:
 

"I believe this coin is a cast fake. You can even see the casting seam along the upper rim of the obverse. Compare the flan shape and the position of the beaded borders on all of these other specimens …"

I included the links to all the specimens I have illustrated above. He replied to me a few days later:
 

Dear Roman Collector,

Thank you for your email. It could well be a cast, I have added a note to its record:

Cast? For possible host: Banti 23. Traces of old red sealing wax in hole.

Kind regards,
Richard

You'll see that he added these notes to the "curator's comments" at the BMC's webpage for the coin. Despite his hypothesis that Banti 23 (the Ars Classica specimen illustrated above) could be the host, detailed examination demonstrates that none of these specimens can be the possible exemplar from which the others were cast. Rather, they are all cast forgeries from an unknown host.

Are there any genuine specimens?

There are a handful of specimens with flan shapes and centering that differ from the cast fakes pictured above and from each other. These have a much higher claim to authenticity. Note that all of these, as well as the (unknown) host of the cast fakes, were struck with the same die pair.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Bibliothèque nationale de France (Cohen 55), Gauthier-Dussart pl. 101, 1710.

Cast forgery of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Jacques Schulman B.V., Amsterdam, Auction 139, (Vierordt), lot 1543, 5 March 1923 = Cayón p.472, 3.

Sestertius of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Münzhandlung Basel, Auction 1, (Prince Waldeck), pl. 28, lot 1132, 28 June 1934.

I don't know what to make of these

The specimen in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow is very similar to the cast fakes illustrated above, and I'm tempted to classify it as among them. However, it differs just enough in flan shape and centering that I can't definitively state it isn't genuine. I'll let you decide. I illustrate it with two photos, the first from the museum's website and the second from the print catalog of the museum's collection.

Sestertius of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, GLAHM:27043.

Sestertius of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Hunter pl. 72, 108.

The specimen formerly in the Medici collection in Florence differs greatly from all others. It was struck on a bimetallic, "boardwalk" flan, and was probably intended to be a medallion of some sort, not for circulation. Because it is bimetallic, we know it was struck and not cast. Note it was created by the same pair of dies as the sestertii, above.

Bimetallic medallion (?) of Faustina I, RIC 1114. Museo archeologico nazionale di Firenze, 35725/19. Bani et al. - vol.1 - Medaglioni, p.24, 15 = Mittag pl. 86, 210 = Banti p.12, 24.

Other denominations with this reverse design

This reverse type also appears in the as and denarius denominations, each known from a single specimen.

As of Faustina I, RIC 1167, known from a single specimen in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Cohen 56), Gauthier-Dussart pl. 103, 1736.

Denarius of Faustina I, unlisted in RIC, BMCRE, Cohen, Seaby, and Strack. Münzkabinett der Universität Göttingen, AN-0291.

There's something not quite right with this denarius. I can't explain other than to say that the style seems a little bit off and the lettering on the obverse has a modern appearance to it. It's not enough for me to declare it a forgery by any means, but I have some doubts about its authenticity. I'd feel better about it were there additional specimens known of the type.

How do we explain these coins?

All of the known sestertii (I count the exemplar of the cast as a single specimen) were struck from the same pair of dies. The medium bronze and denarius denominations are known from a single specimen each. The die pair used to strike the sestertii is at least as old as the latest coins in the Medici collection, which date to the 17^th century.

It's possible these are renaissance fantasy pieces, but why strike them in three different denominations as well as a bimetallic medallion? It certainly wasn't Cavino’s practice to do so. Rather, I'm inclined to take the reverse type as being one used to commemorate the deification of Faustina the Elder in 140 or 141 CE, but a very limited issue, perhaps commissioned for the guests of a funerary event and struck during the course of a single shift at the mint using a single pair of dies for each denomination.

I would love to read your thoughts and comments about these coins. Post coins, comments, or anything you feel is relevant!

~~~

Bibliography

Bani, Stefano, Mauro Benci, and Alessandro Vanni. I medaglioni romani del Monetiere del Museo archeologico nazionale di Firenze, Vol. 1. Florence, 2011.

Banti, Alberto. I Grandi Bronzi Imperiali: Sesterzi e Medaglioni Classificati Secondo Il Sistema Cohen, vol. III, part 1. Florence, 1985.

Cayón, Juan R., Los Sestercios del Imperio Romano, vol. II, De Adriano A Faustina Madre (Del 117 d.C. al 161 d.C.). Madrid, 1984.

Cohen, Henry. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, Tome III: de Marc Aurèle à Albin (161 à 197 après J.-C.). Paris, 1883.

Gauthier-Dussart, Roxane, et al. "Entre Rome et Alexandrie: Le Monnayage d'antonin Le Pieux (138-161), Idéologie Du Règne et Adaptations Locales." l'Université de Montréal, 2017.

Mattingly, Harold (BMCRE). Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 4, Antoninus Pius to Commodus. London, 1940, reprinted with alterations 1968.

Mittag, Peter Franz. Römische Medaillons II: Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart, 2019.

Robertson, Anne S. (Hunter). Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet: University of Glasgow vol. 2, Trajan to Commodus. London, Oxford University Press, 1971.

Seaby, H. A. Roman Silver Coins, vol II: Tiberius - Commodus. London, B. A. Seaby, LTD, 1968.

Strack, Paul L. Untersuchungen Zur Romischen Reichspragung Des Zweiten Jahrhunderts. vol. 3, Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1937.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Very interesting article @Roman Collector. Now I will have to double check whether any of my sestertii have been cast. If there is an example that might fall into the category is my sestertius of Pupienus. I have enjoyed the coin for several years but recently I was looking at the wear patterns under the somewhat uniform patina on the reverse and had a doubt. Maybe it would be a good idea to send it to David Sear and get his opinion...

Coin in question. I bought it along with Balbinus (which I can tell is an authentic sestertius). The Pupienus was not cheap but priced similar to other authentic sestertii in similar condition, so a low price was not a red flag, either.

 

If it is a fake I would say it was definitely patterned after an authentic piece. The dealer is well-regarded for the most part but may have sold something that they didn't flag as inauthentic.

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[CPK]

Very interesting read @Roman Collector. Remarkable that the coin has fooled so many.

[seth77]

Why is all the media silent on this?

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Well done Sherlock ! Just checked quickly and saw another one sold by Roma in 2020 (described as a cast Paduan medallion) but maybe it’s one illustrated above that has been resold. I’d be curious to compare the weight of each specimen, it should be very similar.

Edited September 20, 2024 by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix
Precision

[Roman Collector]

2 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Very interesting article @Roman Collector. Now I will have to double check whether any of my sestertii have been cast. If there is an example that might fall into the category is my sestertius of Pupienus. I have enjoyed the coin for several years but recently I was looking at the wear patterns under the somewhat uniform patina on the reverse and had a doubt. Maybe it would be a good idea to send it to David Sear and get his opinion...

Coin in question. I bought it along with Balbinus (which I can tell is an authentic sestertius). The Pupienus was not cheap but priced similar to other authentic sestertii in similar condition, so a low price was not a red flag, either.

 

If it is a fake I would say it was definitely patterned after an authentic piece. The dealer is well-regarded for the most part but may have sold something that they didn't flag as inauthentic.

 

Do the flan cracks go all the way through to the other side? Are they sharp? Is there anything on the edge resembling a casting seam or evidence of filing down such a seam?

48 minutes ago, CPK said:

Very interesting read @Roman Collector. Remarkable that the coin has fooled so many.

Thank you for the kind words! And yes, it IS remarkable.

44 minutes ago, seth77 said:

Why is all the media silent on this?

They're obviously in on the conspiracy! 😉

38 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Well done Sherlock ! Just checked quickly and saw another one sold by Roma in 2020 (described as a cast Paduan medallion) but maybe it’s one illustrated above that has been resold. I’d be curious to compare the weight of each specimen, it should be very similar.

Thank you for reading and for the kind words. Please post the link (and a photo, too, if possible). Thanks!! 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

3 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

Do the flan cracks go all the way through to the other side? Are they sharp? Is there anything on the edge resembling a casting seam or evidence of filing down such a seam?

I did some searching and it's clear it is not an obvious fake, no evidence of filing and the edges appear struck like other sestertii. So for now I'll withhold judgment. It appears similar to other V ICTORIA AVGVSTI types and I may have found a reverse die match..... not to hijack the thread on Faustina 😉

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Ryro]

Hot damn I LOVED everything about this write up!!! The mystery, the depths these forgeries were able to infiltrate, and of course that it was my main man @Roman Collector that figured it out!

Great research from one of, if not, the most knowledgeable experts on Faustina around. I was lucky enough to be in communication with RC while he was researching this and man watching the sweater unravel was a blast! I only wish he could have gotten that example that was up at Timeline. The one that started it all. But I am with you RC, a fake is still only worth a fraction of a real coin, no matter how cool the story.

For my 2 cents, that are probably worth a hey penny, there must be a host out there. Someone found and realized that they had a very rare coin, made forgeries, and made a couple bucks for their sleazy greasy pockets.

(actual imagery of our forger)

Here's a mystery involving the British thiefseum that RC helped me somewhat attribute (he figured out the name on the side was in retrograde!)

 I purchased this, along with 1 other seal, from Savoca shortly before the Peter Higgs scandal rocked an uncaring BM. When I asked Savoca if it was purchased from the BM they merely responded that they recommend I reach out to the BM directly. I've emailed the BM three different times about this and gotten only responses that they forwarded to another area. So if it was sold through Savoca via Higgs or a intermediary, I don't feel bad owning it.

This seal has the name Alcibiades on it and a Herma. Making it seem like a reference to the most famous Greek, not named Alexander, and Athens ill-fated voyage to Syracuse:

Series from the British Museum (ca. 1860-1880 AD). Seal:

Cat tailed Phallus (with legs/wings?), snail and cricket left and above, Herma right, monogram above, Greek writing right ΑΛΚΙΒΙΑΔΗΣ – Alcibiades. All in retrograde. 19 mm, 2,46 g, very fine. Purchased from Savoca July 2023

Here is the buddy. Not as sexy, but artistically also beautiful:

Series from the British Museum (ca. 1860-1880 AD). Weight Æ

13 mm, 1,37 g

very fine

If these did come from their collection I feel no sorrow whatsoever. I may have got a Knick knack or 2 from the greatest thieves of antiquity the world has ever known:

Again, great research, good work using your noodle and observations to find these and thanks for sharing a most excellent discovery!

Edited September 20, 2024 by Ryro

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

10 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

Please post the link (and a photo, too, if possible). Thanks!!

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6711673

 

[Roman Collector]

2 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6711673

 

Thanks so much! That is yet another specimen of the cast forgery. 

[Marsyas Mike]

Very impressive sleuthing, @Roman Collector.  I would agree with you the denarius does not look quite right - especially the portrait.  

As for the British Museum, I've contacted them twice with what I thought were minor attribution errors on a couple of Antonine AEs - the response was courteous, comprehensive, and they made the changes I suggested, which made me feel like a real numismatist for once.  

[Phil Davis]

My first thought: might the bimetallic piece in Florence be the host, the forger taking the easier route and reproducing only the inner part of the bimetallic flan?