Victrix Posted September 20 · Member Share Posted September 20 This coin was found in England and the seller claims it's likely an imitation from the area of Dorchester. While the style supports that from the obverse point of view the reverse seems rather normal. Was it often they even added the mintmarks on those imitations? It seems to me they often don't have any. (17mm 2,0g) Thanks for any insight! 😀 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Victor_Clark Posted September 20 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted September 20 they usually do have mintmarks...though sometimes hard to interpret. here are some of my unofficial Lyon coins for comparison. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ominus1 Posted September 20 · Patron Share Posted September 20 ...idk...that one lQQks legit to me.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victrix Posted September 20 · Member Author Share Posted September 20 53 minutes ago, Victor_Clark said: they usually do have mintmarks...though sometimes hard to interpret. here are some of my unofficial Lyon coins for comparison. Guess I'm mixing it up with the 3rd century radiates that are way cruder then these. You reckon mine is an official issue or is an imitation , i'm 50 50 on it 😛. Thanks for the insight tho! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Victor_Clark Posted September 20 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted September 20 46 minutes ago, ominus1 said: ...idk...that one lQQks legit to me.... No, there are several tells. Without even discussing the style, the legends are not quite right. The obverse legend is missing MAX and the reverse legend is missing the terminal S. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ominus1 Posted September 20 · Patron Share Posted September 20 19 minutes ago, Victor_Clark said: No, there are several tells. Without even discussing the style, the legends are not quite right. The obverse legend is missing MAX and the reverse legend is missing the terminal S. ..i couldn't argue with that...:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Ancient Coin Hunter Posted September 26 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted September 26 The reverse devices tend to give away that these coins are ancient imitations or unofficial issues. I suppose to make up for a paucity of regular coinage in certain areas kind of like the barbarous radiates of the Tetrici during the Gallic Empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasiel Posted September 26 · Member Share Posted September 26 On this page only the Victoria with exergue ƧLC is barbarous. The other three are standard issue coins from the mint of Lugdunum. Rasiel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Conduitt Posted September 26 · Supporter Share Posted September 26 I never knew they could be so close to the original. The British ones usually aren't, but I think the 'Dorchester' ones were particularly good, which might be why yours has been described as such. I have a couple of 'Dorchester' imitations but they are obviously imitations because of their size. Constantius II Barbarous Imitation Nummus, 337-348 Britain imitating Trier. Bronze, 14mm, 2.34g. Bust of Constantius II, diademed, cuirassed, facing right; CONSTATI - VS IVN. Two soldiers, each holding a spear and a shield, one standard between them inscribed "M", TRP in exergue; GLORI-A EXERC-ITVS (cf RIC VII, 105). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAZ Numismatics Posted September 26 · Member Share Posted September 26 I'm fond of the miniature imitations. Here is a regular issue for Constantius II from Siscia and its mini-me, coming in at 11mm, 0.5g... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benefactor Victor_Clark Posted September 26 · Benefactor Benefactor Share Posted September 26 1 hour ago, John Conduitt said: I never knew they could be so close to the original. Unofficial issues can look almost as good as official issues. There is no way to prove it; but I am sure that some are not really distinguishable. One reason for good copies is that some mint workers moonlit as forgers. Theodosian Code 9:21:2 Since some imperial minters are secretly and criminally engaged in the coinage of counterfeit money, all shall know that the necessity is incumbent on them of seeking out such men, that they may be tracked down and delivered to the courts, so that they may forthwith betray the accomplices of their deeds through torture and thereupon be sentenced to suitable punishments. (20 November 321) I have two unofficial issues that slipped through NGC as official. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Conduitt Posted September 26 · Supporter Share Posted September 26 4 minutes ago, Victor_Clark said: One reason for good copies is that some mint workers moonlit as forgers. It would explain why British barbarous coins are not usually good copies - the London mint shut in 325. Although that is also why they needed to forge coins in the first place. Constantius II Barbarous Fallen Horseman, 350s Bronze, 15mm, 1.59g. Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right with coarse features, exaggerated hairlines and long diadem ties; garbled legend. Soldier spearing fallen horseman who is wearing broad-brimmed helmet, seated half upright and reaching backwards; garbled legend and mintmark. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.