Hello all. I have been following the thread "Another Fake from Lanz" and since I have a coin from Lanz I sent images to Robert Kokotailo asking if he thought my coin was a fake. He responded that he felt the coin was good and gave the reasons why which included his thoughts on a different kind of fouree. He said I could share his thoughts with CoinTalk so here it is. I found it very interesting. First my coin and then his response. Otho (Augustus) Coin: Silver Denarius IMP OTHO CAESAR AVG TR P - Bare head right. PONT MAX - Ceres standing left, holding grain ears and long cornucopia. Mint: Rome (69 AD) Wt./Size/Axis: 2.51g / 19mm / 6h Rarity: Very Rare References: RIC I 20 (an aureus) BMC 9 C. 11 RSC 11 BN 25 Provenances: numismatic lance Numismatik Lanz Munchen Acquisition/Sale: numismatic lance eBay $0.00 11/19 Notes: Nov 21, 19 - The Gary R. Wilson Collection Struck 9 March-mid April 69 AD-note; Muona Group 3, Type 12B From Robert Kokotailo: My impression is that the coin is ancient, and die struck, but is not a product of the Rome mint. More likely it is an ancient counterfeit of a very specific type many people would not recognize. A fouree (silver plated base core coins) but with a base silver core rather than a copper core. That is why you see the bumps where metal in the baser core has corroded and expanded below the surface, and where you see the broken blisters where some of those bumps have burst, but you don't see the copper core you expect of fouree coins. I had trouble getting people to believe this category of ancient counterfeit actually exists, so a few years ago I wrote a website about one I have in my own collection. http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/articles/antonyfourree/fourree.htm I am still not sure most people can accept this, but I have seen numbers of them over the years. As a rule, an ancient counterfeiter who cannot make a good quality die is knows if someone is looking close the style might realize it is counterfeit right away, and wants to maximize profit on each coin so using a copper core, and is not concerned as much about weight. An ancient counterfeiter who can produce a high quality die is not concerned the look of the coin will give it away instantly, so he is safer if he does something like this and get the weight, look and feel closer. Your example has very good style, but the letters are very thick and flat. That is consistent with the die being produced as a transfer die off of a official coin. I discuss that on this page part way down under impression dies, a method used by both ancient counterfeiters and modern forgers, both of whom has the same problem with the method. http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/struck.htm Robert Kokotailo
Robert always has excellent observations. I remember reading about this a while ago but then forgot about it. Thanks for bringing in back to mind!
I might have called the coin 'surface enriched' rather than fourree since I see no signs of the exterior being applied as a silver foil wrapped around the core (whatever its composition). We must always remember that not all unofficial coins were made in the same way since unofficial mints were not required to follow a specific method but just did it their way in the hope to pass fakes and not get caught. Below is my more standard Otho fourree with obviously copper inside. Note the distinct seam obverse right where the foil sheets overlapped. I once was told by an 'expert' that it was impossible to assemble a series of 12 Caesars in fourree because there were no Othos. I have seen five but I am not an expert and assume there are many more out there somewhere.
Gary, That's a fascinating coin with expert analysis from Robert Kokotailo. Thanks for sharing . I've got a fouree Republican denarius I'll post when I get a chance to photograph it.
I have wondered if this Hadrian denarius was a fourée because the surface metal has bubbled up in various places and cracked on the obverse and reverse. It's a bit underweight, too. However, other members, such as @Marsyas Mike and @zumbly suggested this was due to planchet lamination. Now, in light of Robert Kokotailo's information, I'm back to wondering if it's a fourée. Hadrian, AD 117-138. Roman (fourée?) denarius, 2.98 g, 17.7 mm, 7 h. Rome mint copy, ca. AD 138. Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P, laureate head, right. Rev: AEGYPTOS, Egypt reclining left, holding sistrum and leaning on basket, around which a snake coils. Ibis on left, facing right. Refs: RIC 296, BMCRE 801-804, RCV 3456, Strack 294. Notes: Underweight. The metal surface has bubbled away from the core and cracked in front of the portrait on the obverse and above the sistrum and in the exergue on the reverse.
Ask Robert Kokotailo! For what it's worth, yours still looks like lamination damage to me. I think I may actually have a better candidate for the sort of fourree that Robert is highlighting in the coin below. Interestingly, when I first looked at it in hand, I had thought fourree too, but others suggested it might be lamination damage. It's from the Pozzi collection, and the possibility of it being a fourree was not mentioned in the original Boutin catalog or the sale where I purchased it. LUCANIA, Metapontion AR (Fourrée?) Didrachm. 7.72g, 20.5mm. LUCANIA, Metapontion, circa 340-330 BC. HN Italy 1576; Johnston Class B, 3.16; Pozzi (Boutin) 499 (this coin). O: ΛEYKIΠΠOΣ, Bearded head of Leukippos to right, wearing Corinthian helmet; behind, dog seated to left; below neck, Σ. R: META, Barley ear with leaf to right; above leaf, dove alighting right; below leaf, AMI. Ex Prof. Samuel-Jean Pozzi Collection (Boutin), 499
http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan10308 The best reference for fourree coins is Campbell which is now available online. He cut a lot of coins in half and photographed the cross sections for study. In all honesty, I can not accept any opinion on the matter unless one has read Campbell or conducted similar studies on their own. I agree with Z regarding the Hadrian but am not sure that his Metapontion is not just a surface enrichment artifact. I bought the Kroton stater below from NFA in 1990. It was identified as a fourree. I believe it is what you get if you clean horn silver too harshly and break through the surface enriched top layer. To prove the matter, I would have to cut the thing in half. My curiosity is not that deep. I say the same thing regarding Z's coin and trust he will similarly avoid the urge to chop. Similarly, I have questions about the Trajan denarius below. It has a volcano shaped bubble behind the head of Trajan which could betray a core below but it also might be a bit of copper in the alloy that was not sufficiently heated to blend properly and erupted after eroding. I see the Hadrian in similar light but again suggest we not go around cutting coins in half to prove these things. When I wrote my several pages on fourrees in 1997, I believed the Trajan was fourree but today I am tending toward the impurity eruption theory. I would be wrong at least once either way. On the off chance there is anyone who cares and has not seen my pages, start here and follow all the links to the other pages. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/fourree.html
I did just that! He replied promptly to my inquiry: The coin is clearly counterfeit. Most likely ancient. The surface is peeling in many places, which cannot be explained by lamination which would happen in only one or two places. I believe there is a plating letting go which means it is fouree. The unanswered question is what is the core made of. I cannot see inside the breaks on the image so cannot tell what is in there. Robert
A most interesting thread. Pretty much guessing here...but since I'd just taken some new photos, I thought I'd throw them out. Faustina I denarius - planchet laminations, silver all the way through (or maybe a base silver core?): Trajan Fourrée, base metal core exposed:
Not sure what I have here. Base metal coin, but what might make it chip like it has? Opinions? FAUSTINA Sr AE Sestertius OBVERSE: DIVA FAVSTINA, draped bust right REVERSE: AETERNITAS S-C, Aeternitas seated left holding phoenix & scepter Struck at Rome, 147 AD 24.53g, 34 mm RIC 1103A
@Gary R. Wilson ....Interesting thread.... I have a very similar obverse to @Roman Collector ..... I had always put these cracks down to lamination too. The nick below the Bust shows it is silver but its also a bit light at 2.87 grams......Will take a good look at it tomorrow in daylight...
Well, there you have it! I do wonder if the determination rests solely on how many surface flaws there are, and why laminations would only be in one or two places, though in the examples I've seen they are indeed in just one or a couple of areas.
JW, is that reverse lettering and border showing through from the chip/break on your obverse? That is cool.
Here are Robert's observations concerning Mike's coins: I think the Faustia is just a broken coin. The Trajan is odd but because the problem seems to be in the center of the coin I don’t think it is a surface playing letting go. More likely the break is on a lamination. At first look both coins seem to be of official style. Robert
