Real or fake?

Boy, i sure hope it's fake and you didn't cut down a Caligula AE to make that!

If it's real, I'm gonna go throw up.

If it's a replica, I'll say "nice job", and a very handsome ring.

 

Please, oh please tell me you're kidding, and that you cut down a repro Caligula. If you're going to destroy an ancient Roman bronze to make a ring (and an admittedly handsome ring), may I recommend a $10 Constantinian bronze from the fourth century, instead?

But... nahh... surely you're yankin' our chains here... right?

But if this is for real, I suppose the "AngelDeath" moniker is frighteningly appropriate, in a numismatic sense.

 

I don't collect rings.

 

You weren't kidding? You really cut a Caligula AE into a rectangle to mount it into a modern ring?

Sorry, but that is indeed murder, in the numismatic sense. If you really did that (and I'm still having trouble believing anybody would do something so dumb unless they just didn't know better). You destroyed a rare coin.

Too bad, really, because you have obvious talent with the jewelry making thing.

That ring would've been even better looking if it had been made with a high quality reproduction with a better portrait on it. It would've served just as well as a good looking jewelry piece without having to destroy a rare coin.

Or again, if you must use a real Roman coin, why not use a less expensive but just as attractive common one, perhaps with a less destructive mounting method?

 

OK. I do collect hobo carvings and love tokens and other "creatively damaged" coins, so perhaps my knee-jerk reaction was a bit ironic.

If you say that had a messed up reverse and the portrait was about all that was left of it, I'll take your point. Still makes me cringe a bit, but I was never questioning your obvious skill as a jewelry designer.

I'm still not sure I agree with the choice of host coin for this piece of jewelry, but I do see your point.

 

Yeah. You didn't need to redact it. What's done is done.

Still a nice lookin' ring.