Looks suspicious for a cast fake: 1) It has a lot of porosity, which suggests air bubbles trapped during the casting process. 2) I don't see metal flow lines that should be present if struck 3) It looks like there is a mold seam, particularly visible on the photo of the obverse from the 2:00 to the 6:00 position.
wow, that's too bad, paschka ... Ummm, that's like a fake "easy-button" (even stevex6 can spot that Fake-Waldo!!) ... I think the cast-bubbles are a dead-give-way (oh, but if doug ends-up telling me that these bubbles are from the ancient stream of Dougarigus, then I'll bow-down and say "hey paschka, cool coin")
I may not be an ancient coins expert but I've seen casts of more modern US coins, and this coin exhibits all the hallmarks of a cast. Even if this had been the first ancient coin that I had ever seen, I would have immediately realized it was still a cast. Just look at all the porosity, uneven wear, and the seams around the edge of the coin, plus there are mold marks in the face of the coin from irregularities or scratches that were suffered by the mold prior to the casting. This is a textbook example of a cast.
I agree the coin looks suspicious, but it should be noted that porosity is not necessarily an indication of casting. Some ancient silver coins acquire crystallized, or reticulated surfaces over time. But these kinds of surfaces look quite different from the porosity of a cast coin. Take a look at this denarius of Hadrian for an example of the type of reticulation that can occur on an authentic coin. Notice that despite the porous surfaces, the coin exhibits the flow lines of striking, particularly on the obverse...
Agree on the authenticity of the OP coin, but like JA, I have coins that are porous or even have what might appear as casting bubbles. I assure you these are not fake: View attachment 453414
Nothing is ever as simple as we might like and telling the difference between casting evidence and the ravages of time is a text book example. Sometimes we fall back on comparing what we see to a concept in our minds of what we think we should see and what we can not accept. I do not like this coin.
If I was purchasing both those coins, I'd be suspicious about the first one and seek expert assistance. The second one seems to me more like what I would expect silver crystallization to look like, and I don't think any counterfeiter has figured out how to fake that one. Don't get me wrong, I believe you when you say the first one is real, but if I was looking at it by myself I wouldn't have been able to tell for sure, so I would seek an expert like you for assistance before spending a dime on it.
The new style Athenian tet that Bing posted is technically not a case of reticulation, but of pitting. Reticulation occurs when impurities in the alloy leach out of the coin over many centuries. Typically, pitting is the result of the cleaning away of dirt and mineral deposits on coin, deposits which have settled into the surfaces. When they're removed, they leave much larger holes than what we refer to as porosity. This sort of pitting is sometimes completely unavoidable - sometimes coins are so encrusted with dirt, that any sort of cleaning leaves the surfaces permanently scarred. Here is a coin I sold recently, which is magnificent in style, strike, and patina, but the surfaces are finely pitted because of the cleaning it once received... Tiberius, AD 14-37 Ae as, 11g, 28mm, 6h; Rome mint: c. 22/23 AD - 26. Obv.: DIVUS AVGVSTVS PATER; Radiate head of Augustus left. Rev.: Altar enclosed with double panelled door, uncertain ornaments above; S - C // PROVIDENT Reference: RIC I Tiberius 81 (p. 99).
I'm certainly no ancient coin expert, and can give no diagnosis on the design elements, but I can say that this does not look like a cast coin to me. A cast coin would more likely have small raised bubbles, not incuse pitting. This looks much more like corrosion to me. The only other explanation that I see is if the coin is a cast replica of a cast coin.
What concerns me more about the OP coin than the porosity are the other points Roman Collector mentioned. There are no metal flow lines. Even with some reticulation, flow lines should be present, as they are in this example, which has similar surfaces and more wear... The other point that RC made concerning an apparent seam is also important, although it may just be the lighting. It would be good to see the edge of the coin, and we would also need the weight in grams and diameter in millimeters to say anything more.
Like I say, I can't comment with any authority about authenticity, but this is more indicative of what I would expect a cast to look like.
Yup. We see plenty of those kinds of bubbles in ancient forgeries as well. Like I said, I don't think the OP coin is cast because of the porosity, but rather the lack of flow lines.
Well paschka, apparently it sounds like it wasn't as easy as I first suspected, eh? ... people seem a bit torn on whether this coin is a cast, or not ... I always wish all ancient collectors good luck (nobody likes to see fakes in our hobby)
Stevex6 and other distinguished colleagues - John Anthony,Kirkuleez, Sallent, dougsmit, Bing,Roman Collector,Pishpash,SilverStacker! Thanks to everyone who l expressed their opinions. This coin is not mine. It is now selling at a famous auction for super expensive as very rare. I do not like this coin. Although the openings may be of silver strain. I was just very interesting to hear your opinion. And so it is still your opinion was divided. Many people think that it is true? I have a purely scientific interest in ascertaining the truth...
