Nero Claudius Drusus Sestertius

NERO CLAVDIVS GERMANICVS IMP / CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TR P IMP PP S C
Sestertius, Rome 42
RIC 109, Sear 1897

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hmmm... I'm leaning towards no, but can you get a side pic?

 

Any trace of a casting seam along the edge? If not, it's probably the real deal.

 

Why? I see nothing wrong from the image. Here is mine for comparison.

 

Letters are very soft and some lack serifs.

Look how sharp the letters on Bing's are. Look at the points on the T in TRP.

Could be a cast. Hard to tell from a photo.

How much does it weigh?

 

I think it's ok too.

 

No idea from photo. Mine:

 

mabye this help,this one is cleaned.
Looks almost the same as yours
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2949007

 

I think it is the same.

 

Yeah

 

It is. I bought that one

 

I see nothing out of the ordinary or suspect judging purely by the pictures.
My guess is genuine.

 

The coin´s weight is 25 g at 33,5 mm.

Are those vertical structures traces of a casting seam???

 

Difficult to judge.
Is that dark 'line' or whatever it is running all the way around the periphery?
If it is, I agree it is suspect.

I have to say though, the obverse and reverse of the coin itself seems OK (from the pictures)

 

No, it is visible just at that area. Here is the other side:

Yes, and that would not have bothered me. What does bother me is that mine looks a little too similar to this specimen (Gorny & Mosch 225, Oct.14, 2014, Nr. 20142):




Could it be that they are both casts from the same source (even if they were both sold as genuine by major auction firms)?

 

Here is an update...
The seller agreed to take back the coin after it has been identified as a cast by Curtis Clay.
Probably made in the 19th Century and done really well... I almost had to cry when I packed it up and sent it back today as I will never again have a Nero Claudius Drusus that I can like that much...

But would you spend 300 USD on a cast?

 

Sorry to read it's a cast (quite well done with the 'wear' helping to 'disguise' it). I could have easily been fooled, but I wouldn't want to pay $300.00 for it either.

 

Sorry to hear that!

It would be interesting to know what markers/characteristics Curtis saw which led him to that conclusion. We could all learn from that.

Thankfully, you are getting your money back so at the end, no harm done.
(Besides the obvious stress and disappointment!)

Glück in Unglück! kein Schaden entstanden

Coincidentally, and if this is any consolation, I had a similar experience with this sestertius of Nero Claudius Drusus many years ago: It was obviously worn, but had very nice portrait and a respectable reverse. On the advice of experienced collectors I put the coin in an acetone bath. They said - what and see what will happen.

Guess what happened? huge pits and craters became evident on the obverse and reverse, as you can see in the pictures. Somebody had filled in and repaired the coin with a plastic material which dissolved in the acetone.
I was lucky too: the dealer who sold it to me reimbursed me fully (it had not been cheap!) and allowed me to keep the coin.

I still like the portrait a lot, so at the end I came out ahead.

 

Curtis just knew this cast existed. Also there are at least three examples around that share the exact same die cut, wear, size, weight, and die shape.
Plus you can make out those edge marks - that did it for me.
Finally I showed my Roman coin tray to my girlfriend (who has absolutely no interest in antiquity or coins) and asked her which of those 40 coins she would think is a fake and she pointed to... Drusus!
"Der sieht einfach zu glatt aus"
;-p

PS. Somehow Drusus seems to be prone to forgeries... at least more than, let's say, Britannicus or the Gordiani Africani.

 

i've got a couple of sest's that i remember being in a lot better shape than they are now. that could be why