Hi CT friends I have possessed this Nero denarius for almost 15 years now, and for some reason, time has come to move to something else, hence my decision to part with it Nero, Denarius - Rome mint, AD 64/65 NERO CAESAR, laureate head of Nero right AVGVSTVS GERMANICVS, Nero standing facing, holding branch and victory on globe 3,32 gr Ref : RCV #1941, Cohen #45, RIC # 47 The following comment, from NFA, auction XX catalog, # 118 : Nero's coinage reform of A.D. 64 saw a reduction in the weight standard of both the aureus and denarius denominations. A whole new range of reverse types was introduced with an unmistakably imperial flavor, in marked contrast to the senatorial types of the pre-reform coinage. This coin depicts a standing figure of the emperor, wearing the radiate crown of the sun god Sol, holding a branch of peace and a small figure of Victory. An allusion to the settlement of the Parthian question, following Corbulo's successes in Armenia in A.D. 63, seems unmistakable. It is tempting to identify this reverse type with the statue of the sun god, with the facial features of the emperor, erected by Nero in front of his Domus Aurea (Golden House), which was one of the principal features of the reconstruction following the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. The Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) was later erected on the site of the Domus Aurea's ornamental lake, and received its popular name from its close proximity to Nero's statue I have someone interested at buying it who in their own right questionned its autheticity, which is normal when buying an ancient. They also showed the pictures to an expert who thought it might have been tooled, especially on Nero's hair In my opinion it's not tooled. I've shown the coin many times to advanced fellow collectors, and some well known professionnals have seen it too and none of them ever questionned it. I acquired it in 2006 from Glenn WOODS at V coins I found at CGB another specimen sharing IMO the same obverse die. It has more wear on the portrait but from what is left, I can't see any difference in the hair curls on both examples : https://www.cgb.fr/neron-denier-tb-,brm_124608,a.html I thought you all might be of some help to solve the case. Do you think this coin is the real thing ? Do you think it is or might be tooled ? Thanks in advance for any contribution : I'm not the kind of guy who will shout out for ten days should I hear bad news... Q
It appears to be (at least) a obverse die match to this fourree: https://www.sixbid-coin-archive.com#/en/single/l28787786 Also note the similar die breaks near the nose (the small blob) and in the eye (idem). This would convince me about authenticity, however, I would be worried your coin might be a fourree as well. If not, then it would be interesting to speculate about the relation between the fourree above and your coin ...
Wow, thanks @Roerbakmix that's most interesting. I explored the fourree route and eventually found another one, fourree too and a double die match to my example, from a former Elsen auction back in 2013 (Elsen auction # 117/311) NERON (54-68), AR denier, 64-65, Rome. Droit : NERO- CAESAR Tête l. à droite. Revers : AVGVSTVS- GERMANICVS Néron radié, en toge, debout de face, tenant un rameau et un globe nicéphore. Ref.: BMC 208, 60; RIC 47. 3,29g. Rare. Fourré. Très Beau - VF However I don't see any sign of my denarius to be a fourree under magnification, and neither do I on the CGB example (from pictures only on that one). It's not the first time we would see plain denarii and fourree sharing the same dies, in favor of croocks being inside the walls, or conterfeiters using genuine dies....Mystery !! Q
This was indeed my implication. For me, this would be a reason to keep the coin, and look out for a fourree as well ... Anyway, I guess you've reason enough to convince the potential buyer.
Q, Having been duped on more than one Nero fake, I'm the last numismatist who should offer an opinion on the coins authenticity , but the coin looks good to me. Your excellent photos, especially after clicking the images for an enlarged view, reveal no tooling to my eyes .
It looks OK to me too. But I had two denarii over the years I got from Frank Robinson & had to return because I found they were "really good" fakes after finding others that slipped both our eyes. Ask @Barry Murphy Don't you just dislike when you have that 1 person put the doubt of authenticity into your mind?
Q, It's definitely a fake. I'm 100% positive. I'm also sure you don't want a counterfeit in your Collection. As a favor, l'll give you 10 $ for it. Please PM me for the shipping address. Your friend, Ocat
The piece looks “modern” to me. I am no expert, but if I were a perspective buyer, I would pass. My experience is limited to 60+ years with U.S. and about of decade of collecting Roman and hammered British pieces.
It's fairly worn, but I believe this reverse die from a CNG lot may be the same: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1022920
If that's a fake, I'm going to eat my baret! I also don't see signs of tooling on the obverse. Wouldn't tooling cause incisions in the metal? The hair appears to have a relief build up that looks normal to me. I also think the wear is logically distributed, affecting only the high points on both obverse and reverse, although the reverse seems to be affected a bit more. Interesting about your reverse is that the legend 'GERMANICVS' starts lower (between 2 and 3 o clock) in comparison to the majority of other types of this coin found online. This makes it easier to find a die match. One is the fouree already noticed above, from the ROMA Numismatics auction E live 3. That is a really cool die match if you ask me But would this also be the reason why the potential buyer questions the authenticity?
That's where you recognize real friends ! Thank you @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix I feel much better now Q
Truth: When I look at the fourrees shown and the coins not identified as fourrees, I see no significant separation in weight. On some, for example the coin shown by Odessa, there is wear through the surface of some letters that looks (judging from the photo) like what you expect from surface enriched flans (pickled in acid to leave better silver on top). Over the years, I have bought several coins listed as fourrees that were solid. The first of these was from NFA over 30 years ago. The fact remains that there are coins that are fourree that show no core and solid coins that are solid that show deposits or seams that cause them to be misidentified by people working quickly including people who should know better. Speculation: Is it possible that all of these coins are solid, surface enriched, flans with some delamination, cracking and deposits that have caused them to be suspected of being fourree. Telling this from photos is not safe. Examining in person with a stereo microscope would require someone with experience with the issues looking for the answers rather than just cataloging a hundred coins and hour to meet a deadline. Opinion: The potential buyer of the coin should not buy it. The possibility of him being dissatisfied and finding more 'experts' to say the coin is bad would make it better sold to someone fully aware of the situation. Were the coin mine, I would not sell it except 'as-is' to someone quite familiar with the coins of Nero from this period (is this certainly Rome mint???). I am no expert in these but what I see does not line up well with the young Neros or the later fat boy coins. I assume it is intermediate??? I would not feel obligated to sell the coin for less than a 'solid' price based on the speculation that it might be plated. This would be an obvious coin to show to a 'real' expert but I do not know who that would be considering its location and the Covid situation. I would put off selling it until you were, yourself, convinced of the status. Meanwhile, it would be good to research any similar coins you can. Does BnF allow citizen visits for things like this? Gut feeling probably right about half of the time at best: Good coin.
I have a few, admittedly inexpert, observations about this coin. First, there is a flatness to the coin's fields (both obverse and reverse) -- both a physical as well as a visual flatness (lack of light reflectivity). This is similar to other known stamped forgeries that have been posted on this site. It's possible that the fields have been smoothed, although it's my understanding that denarii are smoothed much less frequently than bronzes, especially a denarius that would have been purchased 15 years ago. With respect to the crispness of detail in Nero's hair, I think this may be due to an uneven/weak strike and an uneven flan. Look at the following areas on the obverse and reverse: On the obverse, it seems to me that if the hair was tooled, at least some additional tooling would have been done to bring more definition to Nero's neck. On the reverse, the draped robe/toga displays a flatness that looks like a weak strike or possibly a thin flan that didn't reach the depth of the die when struck. It's unlikely that circulation wear would result in a completely flat area in the robe with little or no wear in the immediately surrounding details, making a flat strike the more likely explanation. I also observe that, in general, the detail on the obverse becomes less crisp as you traverse the coin directionally from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock (cf. the left- and right-hand legends), which could be caused by an angled die, thus an uneven strike. A definitive determination of the coin's genuineness cannot be made solely from a picture, unless it's a match to a previously determined/known fake, so if I were the potential purchaser I would want it examined in hand by an expert. Personally, however, I continue to find the flatness of the fields and light reflectivity to be disconcerting.
I don't think i've ever heard of or seen a plated denarius sharing the same dies as genuine. I don't think it's off topic to ask if you could share this. I too am leaning toward all of them being solid.
Btw, Cucumbor's coin reminds me of this Tet that supposedly came with a David Sear cert and was later removed from the auction.