Embarassing follis sold on Roma Numismatics

Sincerly I don’t know how is possibile that this has been proposed from this auction house. It has been sold as a tooled and smoothed Domitius Alexander. Sadly this a common follis from Rome mint tooled to appear a rarer Domitius Alexander.

A view of the style of the reverse clearly show it, if we give a look at the obverse we can see like the the bust right of the original coin hats been tooled in a head right.

Is it possible that today an auction house sell what is offered as a rare coin without attention?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow—that is a really bad tool job.

 

Roma would be one of the last auction firms to sell a tooled coin without noting it in the description. Disappointed.

 

Who would be fooled by that poor tooled coin?

 

What a nose job!!

 

Just out of curiosity I checked the CNG research site and found one sale for $7500. https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=201443

If indeed the Roma specimen is real (I think not also), the buyer got quite a deal tooled or not.

 

What a poorly done schnoz! I'd sue the plastic surgeon that did that if I were him.

 

I do not want to defend the undefendable but the description of the auction house says: "heavily tooled and smoothed". About the big nose, a quick look at acsearch shows it is a common feature for this emperor.

 

The problem is this is not a coin of Domitius Alexander but it is a Licinius or Constantinus from Rome mint.
Even if is reported tooled and smoothed has been sold this coin for more than 2000 usd when the value is below 100usd. There is only a word to explain this but I don’t want to write it.

 

Probably a fake/tooled/smoothed, but even the authentic ones are of a poor style.

 

I don't understand how this coin could possibly be a coin of Licinius or Constantinus ? The inscription on the obverse is clear enough to read: IMP ALEXANDER PF AVG. It wasn't re-carved from a different inscription . The heavy tooling on the portrait is obvious, but lets not get carried away....

 

Not my bag but, isn't the A of Alexander tooled from a C ?
The original Obverse legend looks to have started IMP C, BEFORE TOOLING.

 

What about all the other letters in the inscription ?

 

As I said, not my bag.
I was just pointing out what jumped out to me, is it an A or a C ?
None of the other examples show this style, therefore something looks " odd "

 

Look how recessed the field of the obverse is, could a new legend have been carved into the coin? It would explain the unnatural high relief of the border dots and the portrait.

It is certainly suspect...

John

 

I do see what could be interpreted as a C remaining along the left side of what is now an A. I could also conceivably imagine the second A in Alexander once being an N. These things can be optical illusions, though, so without being able to examine it in hand it's hard to say. I sure wouldn't buy it.

 

I think it would be an incredible feat of engraving to produce an entirely new inscription. Was the old inscription tooled to make it look better ? Probably.

 

Roma is on my blacklist from some time. Hopefully some collectors having bad experience advise me about them some months ago.

 

I would use the term " possibly " Al, rather than probably.
I am also struggling to get my head around the " other " bust details at the back of the neck that @Roma pointed out, just how much tooling has happened here ?

 

It's definitely not impossible to produce an entirely new inscription. I believe @dougsmit may even have an example in his collection, but it might not be completely redone.