Well friends, here's a positively awful looking fouree denarius, but I found the piece intriguing for the added dimension of being a mule. Vespasian. A.D. 69-79. fouree denarius (2.85 g, 19.5 mm). CAESAR IMP VESPASIANVS..., laureate head right / TR POT IMP II COS VIII DES VIIII PP, Fortuna standing left, holding rudder and cornucopia. cf. RIC 141, RSC 610. Although this variation of Fortuna is found on the coins of Vespasian, the reverse legend belongs to Domitian. The consulship places the minting of this denarius at or after the year 82, simply because the reverse legend would not have existed before then. We've had discussions about fouree denarii before, and it's fascinating to consider the various reasons they exist, but I'm more intrigued by mules. Of course I can't prove it, but I like to think this coin has nefarious origins - somebody stole a pair of dies (who cares if they go together, nobody will notice) and went about increasing their purse. The penalties for counterfeiting in ancient Rome were pretty severe, and they usually involved some sort of grotesque death: burning at the stake, being fed to the beasts, that sort of thing. So it's both fascinating and macabre to consider that some of the "forged" coins in our collections may have once been paid for by life and limb.
'I sense great vulnerability. A man-child crying out for love. An innocent orphan in the post-modern world.' 'I see a parasite. A sexually depraved miscreant who is seeking only to gratify his basest and most immediate urges.' 'His struggle is man's struggle. He lifts my spirit.' 'He is a loathsome, offensive brute. Yet I can't look away.' 'He transcends time and space.' 'He sickens me.' 'I love it.' 'Me too.' - An elderly art loving couple, admiring the painting of Kramer, in "The Letter" I. Love. It.
You know, this isn't an honest coin. Even if it was officially sanctioned, it's still an effort to defraud, at least in my humble opinion. In some ways, the lack of eye-appeal is a metaphor for the ugliness of greed.
I'll keep a close eye on it to be sure, Mat. My biggest concern now is that arrives from overseas without flaking apart into a bunch of little pieces.
The way I see it, the portrait looks more like Domitian so only the legend is Vespasian. Strange coin!
Doug, I know the flaked-off silver runs interference, but do you think the dies are from an official mint engraver? It doesn't have the look of a barbarous piece, but what I don't know could fill a library...
I see them as unofficial. Style does not have to be bad to be unofficial - just different than the real one. I'll offer two other Domitian fourrees. Both are quite wrong and unofficial.
Here are some excerpts from a lecture delivered to the Numismatic Society in London by John Yonge Akerman in 1843. I wonder if you Roman experts can corroborate this information – or has modern scholarship superseded some of it? Can anyone verify this? A quick search of the web shows me that the denarii of Claudius are scarce, and quite expensive in better grades, but I only found one fouree (not my coin)… This is supposedly a piece from the Lugdunum mint. Can someone educate me as to the mint mark? Or is it a matter of certain types made by certain mints? Of course, the fact that Julius Caesar and Caracalla engaged in fraud doesn’t indict Claudius of the same. But it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility of rulers defrauding the public – one can cite thousands of examples throughout history.
Doug, help me out here if you would. The second coin is obviously a fouree as some of the core is showing through. Are the brownish areas in the first coin also indicative of the silver being worn away? I compared those two coins to authorized denarii of Domitian, and I can see various stylistic differences. But my untrained eye would ascribe those differences to variations between engravers. What significant differences in detail do you see, that put them under the judgment of being "quite wrong"? Also, I haven't looked up all the legends for Domitian - should I be looking for anomalies there as well?
I have a few of these fouree's.. Domitian ..81-96...AD.. AR Denarius....fouree Ob. laureate head left.. Rev. Minerva standing left, holding thunderbolt and spear with shield.. Mint Rome.. 19mm x 2.06 g.
Vespasian ...79..AD.. AR Denarius....fouree.. Ob. laureate head right.. Rev. draped Victory advancing left erecting trophy.. Jewish captive weeping beneath. Mint..Rome.. 19mm x 3.07 g.
As popular as the whole 'zombie' thing is right now, you could probably sell these to zombie fans for a better price than you'd get by the usual routes. I can see it now, the eBay listing... L@@K! Authentic two thousand year old Zombie coin! R@RE! Put it under Science Fiction and Horror instead of Coins and Paper Money. Just kidding. Sorta.
Claudius and the rulers immediately before and after (early Nero before he debased the coins) are possibly rare solid because so many of those coins were melted in their day due to their good silver. Fourrees survive; I even have one. That does not mean Claudius made them. My first Domitian has wear through to eutectic on the laurel wreath and a classic seam on the obverse. It's style is not normal. At 2.6g, it is light for solid in that grade. It is unofficial and fourree.
