It was a toss up......

@Nicholas Molinari : I don't have access to the Paris specimen. The BM example is at http://tinyurl.com/yckcthhk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@curtislclay, if Paris possesses what could be a genuine example, do you have a link to an online photo of the Paris specimen? It would make sense to compare them.

To me, the object at the top of the cone on the British Museum example looks like a baetyl (which some apparently think it was intended to be), whereas the one on top of Pete's example looks simply like a sphere. There are a number of 17th century prints of the Meta Sudans -- based on artists' conceptions of what it looked like originally, not what it looked like in the 1600s -- and the ones I've seen have what looks like a sphere on top. See, e.g., https://www.sandersofoxford.com/shop/product/meta-sudans/. So I suppose that if Pete's example is a copy, it could theoretically be a copy of one of those prints. Is it possible to see what the object is on top of the cone in the images of the Meta Sudans on genuine Colosseum coins, on which the Meta Sudans appears to the left?

 

Here are the links to the ex. of the BnF :
Gallica
Catalogue
I insert these two links, because some informations can be complementary. That's the case for the commentary which may let think that the coin is a fake.
Personally, I completely share Curty's ideas.

 

Thank you. A quite different reverse from the other two. Does it look struck or cast to people?

 

Did everyone read the links provided? BnF has an opinion.
Note(s) : Faux moderne

 

I find it interesting that Rossi/Lauro's "imagined" Meta Sudans from Donna's post is reminiscent of the OP coin and BMC specimen, perhaps suggesting a 17th century forgery. Are there many ancient accounts that describe its features and dimensions?

The French coin looks struck and in ancient style, so again I agree with Curtis that that one might be real.

 

@dougsmit

Doug,

I overlooked "modern forgery" in the French text, but think that declaration is pretty much worthless.

Doubtless the author was just following Giard's condemnation of this coin, without reasons or explanation, in the third volume of his Paris catalogue. But Giard apparently had a poor eye for forgeries. Most of his 44 numbered "modern forgeries" in that volume are, in my opinion, perfectly authentic ancient coins. They include, for example, two sestertii of Galba, nos. 2 and 4, which are not only from known authentic dies, but were accepted as ancient by the highly competent Oxford numismatist Colin Kraay, who included them in his published die catalogue of the sestertii of Galba.
Edit: Actually there are reasons for suspecting that Galba sestertius no. 2 might be a cast of a struck original, and Kraay did not include this specimen in his die catalogue, no. 379.

 

@Nicholas Molinari, I have no knowledge of what, if anything, ancient accounts say about its features and dimensions, but we do have the contemporaneous portrayals of the Meta Sudans on the Colosseum sestertii of Titus. Here are images from acsearch of two of the most expensive -- and presumably authentic -- examples of that coin auctioned in the last 15 years (sold for $463K and $411K, respectively), each showing the Meta Sudans to the left of the Colosseum:






Each shows (the first one especially clearly) a tripartite object at the top of the Meta Sudans, namely an oblong object with two other objects extending horizontally or diagonally from its bottom, presumably spouts from which water flowed. See https://romereborn.org/content/meta-sudans , comparing this tripartite object to a flower shape with three petals. The tripartite object apparently belongs to the general category of an acroterium.*

Certainly, the tripartite object at the top of the Meta Sudans on the Colosseum coins is rather similar to what's portrayed on the Paris example of the Meta Sudans sestertius.

On the other hand, apart from any other differences, the 17th century prints all seem to show a spherical object at the top, some of them (like the one for which I posted the link and you posted the image) also depicting streams of water emerging either directly from that object, or from what look like they may be small water spouts on the top of the sphere. The artists who created these prints may not have had easy access to the Colosseum coins or prints of them, of course.** The British Museum example also has a spherical or oblong object at the top, and if you use your imagination I suppose you can sort of see traces of an object on either side of it. The @PeteB example has a sphere at the top, and I see no traces of anything else. Anyone can draw whatever conclusions they wish.

* See the extensive discussion of the Meta Sudans (as depicted on the Colosseum coins and otherwise), and of parallel objects (including similar fountains in the provinces, several of them depicted on provincial coins), using the "acroterium" terminology for the object crowning the cone, in Longfellow, Brenda. “Reflections of Imperialism: The Meta Sudans in Rome and the Provinces.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 92, no. 4, 2010, pp. 275–292. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29546132. Accessed 2 June 2021. The article suggests that the entire conical shape of the Meta Sudans may have been intended to represent a baetyl, a representation particularly evident in the shape of its recently-excavated predecessor, the Augustan Meta Sudans. See also the discussion at https://www.timetravelrome.com/2019/08/17/meta-sudans-rediscovered-coins-other-stories/; https://colosseumrometickets.com/meta-sudans/ ("The ancient sources record that the house that was the birthplace of Augustus stood in this part of the valley: the conical shape, so original for a fountain, has therefore been explained by scholars as an allusion to the betyl, the aniconic symbol of Apollo, the god whom Augustus recognised as his patron").

** Just to give an idea of what actually remained of the Meta Sudans around the 17th and 18th centuries, here are two prints from that period, both showing the Meta Sudans as little more than a stump:

 

That link to the BnF site takes me to a coin's obverse that is not the correct coin. Their search engine was not too helpful. I finally found the BM coin on it which the second link took me straight to (The coin was shown by @Nicholas Molinari above).

So, again, can someone supply a link to an image of the Paris coin?

 

Warren,

Don't know what could be going wrong!

Aestimare's first link above takes me right to the Paris coin.

Curtis

 

Same here. The first link goes directly to the Paris example. Plus @Nicholas Molinari posted an image of the Paris coin anyway. That's not the British Museum example.

 

Here are the links to the fake/authentic coins Curtis’ speaking about :
- Faux n°2 according to Giard :
Catalogue
Gallica
- Faux n°4 according to Giard :
Catalogue
Gallica

How did I find them ?

I’ve seen that the Faux moderne mention was present on the “catalogue”’s page, but not on the “Gallica”’s page. Then the shorter way to find the fakes attributed to Galba is, according to me, this way : on the “catalogue”’s main page, ask for :

monnroimp galba faux moderne


monnroimp = roman imperial coins
monnrorep = roman republican coins
monngre = greek coins

If you look for Faux moderne coins on the Gallica’s main page, the fake coins won’t appear.

Many descriptions are wrong, or partly wrong, what for the neophyte is considerably damaging. I can see you’re all very polite. I deplore it too.

Thank you @Curtis.

@Valentinian : I confirm that if you don’t work at the BnF (I don’t !) you can think you’re in Knossos (catalogue, Gallica, Base Joconde, culture.fr, medaillesetantiques.bnf.fr, etc…) ! The two sites catalogue and Gallica are linked. But as I explained, there are some differences. On the catalogue’s page that I illustrated here, you can access to Gallica’s page where you’ll see the both sides of the coin.

 

And people complain about German bureaucracy!

 

@DonnaML , you have the best photos I've ever seen on kenom.de . All their photographers are exceptionnal, and their policies are generously educative. Thank to them. And thank to all people here who do their best in the same way. Whatever the quality photos are.

 

I'm afraid I'm confused. What is that website? I've never heard of it.

 

Here’s the BM coin:

 

The Meta Sudans on these coins does indeed look like the French specimen.

 

This is the portal of German civic museums.

 

Thank you!