Just got this one in the mail today. I bought it because of the obverse anomalies around the bust of Vespasian. Im not sure what is going on but I dont think it is a fouree. Opinions and facts are needed. Thanks VESPASIAN AR Denarius Rome IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, Laureate head right PON MAX TR P COS V, winged caduceus 3.01 grams, 21mm RIC 703, RSC 362, BMC 138 Here is the seller's obverse pic that shows the anomaly better And you are more than welcome to post your Vespasians or whatever youd like. Thanks.
I think it was double struck and the second strike caused the flan to spread even further, enlarging the bust created by the first strike. You can see that the shape of the nose, mouth, etc is identical.
I had a feeling about that when I bought it. Im not used to seeing that with ancient coins so I wasnt sure if it wasnt some other thing that I havent learned about yet with ancients. So double struck, that is pretty cool. Thanks
Interesting Vespasian! This is one of mine I find interesting. VESPASIAN AR Denarius OBVERSE: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, laureate head right REVERSE: TR POT X COS VIIII, radiate figure standing on rostral column, holding scepter Struck at Rome, 79AD 2.9g, 18mm Sear 2311. BMC 254. RIC 1065 (RIC [1962] 119) ex Warren Esty
Interesting coin. Ancient coins were hand struck. We think they were struck more than once (2, 3 or more times). On your coin, the flan must have stayed close to reverse die, but the obverse moved a bit. You might be able to see some doubling on the reverse under magnification. What I do not understand are the dots on the reverse around the caduceus on your coin. I do not see them on coins on acsearch. https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...s=1¤cy=usd&thesaurus=1&order=0&company=
I can assure you the 'dots' are not part of the device's design. They are present on both the obverse and reverse and possibly are a result of the coin's abnormal condition of manufacture.
An interesting thread - I've seen that sort of planchet "dotting" on a lot of ancients and I have been wondering about it myself. As for the OP coin, and Bing's, these do not look like casting bubbles to me (from the cast-counterfeiting process), although I am surprised nobody has suggested that yet. I see this phenomenon too often on too many otherwise correct-looking types to be convinced of casting. Also, I'm having trouble following the "doubling" theory if only because I just can't see it causing this sort of appearance. My very inexpert guess would be some sort of improper planchet preparation is responsible, leading to internal metal lamination that manifests itself on the surface? Here is a Diva Faustina I denarius in my collection that has these traits. I'm pretty sure it isn't a fourree and I just don't think this is a cast counterfeit (note the flow lines around some of the lettering). And it doesn't look like a double-strike. But again, I'm no expert.
I always thought this was an odd flan issue at Obv 2:30, and purchased it at a very low price as a missattributed Quinarius (around $50 which is low for any Quinarius). Later @red_spork identified it for me, and set me straight! RR Quinarius 212-195 BCE 1.8g Luceria mint Anon Craw 098-B1 L VERY RARE
Remember it is always possible for there to be more than one thing going on at the same time. I agree with the double strike idea. Raised pimples are associated with some fakes but I've seen some I believe came from a coin being in fire (cleaned with a blowtorch???). Here we have the reason I am glad I am not a dealer and doubly glad I don't work for a grading service where I am expected to tell the difference between real and fake for every coin I see. It is easier to tell the difference between coins I want to buy and coins I don't without having to explain why. I most certainly have coins I find interesting for reasons not all that different from that doubled profile. I might have bought that one for that oddity. The pimples add nothing I find interesting so I would have walked away without comment. Is it a coin you want to see someday offered in a sale as "ex (your name goes here) collection"?
I don't actually know what is causing the dots, though I have seen a similar but different effect on a coin that had some pretty significant horn silver which was concerned back to metallic silver as part of the cleaning process by an experienced cleaner I know. As far as the double strike, take a look at the seller image posted above and outline of the bust is very clear. In my opinion there are multiple things going on here and no one single effect can explain everything on this coin.
While we're on the subject of ancient pimples, here is a worn Domitian denarius with wolf-and-twins reverse that looks pretty good to me, except for those obverse pimples in the field. It's always made me a little uncertain about it... I share Doug's thoughts on being a dealer having to make these calls.
I think yours is probably die damage(sometimes called die rust but I'm not 100% sure that it's rust). Here is an example from my collection(black background) and a reverse die match that is currently for sale at Harlan J Berk where you can see the same phenomenon. Look at the spot at about 9:30 on the reverse and the other under the "PI" of PISO. The fact that you can see the effect on both coins' reverses shows that this is indeed a flaw in the die versus something that happened after it left the mint
Check the edge of the OP coin very carefully. I see what appear to be traces of a seam. The dots may well indeed be casting bubbles.
I will check the edge when i get home tonight. I did the magnet test with a rare earth magnet last night and determined it is silver, which is why i didnt think it was a counterfeit or a fouree. When silver slides down the magnet it will "stick" for about a half second before falling off. Non silver coins wont do that.
Many counterfeits are made of actual silver. There's about $1.64 worth of silver in your coin so there's little reason to think a counterfeiter would try and save money by using pot metal.
