It was a toss up......

From the Longfellow article I cited above (see p. 288), and for whatever relevance it may have, a Roman Provincial coin from Corinth (ca. 85-87 CE) depicting a Meta Sudans-like fountain, shaped similarly at the top to the Meta Sudans in Rome as depicted on the Paris example and on the Titus Colosseum sestertii:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting discussion here. But my point: every one who condamn or genuine the Titus based their opinion on a picture ??? Did a specialist had the coin in hand ? Anyway any potential buyer for a piece of this rarity and price will need authentification by a third partie (Sear, NGC) like the eid mar aureus sold lately. Why don’t do that to clear the question

 

That would be up to the owner of the coin (who has participated in the conversation), and any potential buyer. For everyone else -- most of whom have infinitely more expertise than I do on subjects like this -- the discussion here is clearly academic and speculative. I see nothing wrong with talking about it on that basis, and with comparing the images on the coin with similar images on other coins, old prints, and so on.

 

@Ricardo123
If two ancient coins are identical in every detail, as I think may well be the case with the BM's and PeteB's examples, then we can be sure even without having them in hand that at least one of them must be a cast.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of David Sear or NGC, if Pete decides to send his coin to them. But I would not expect that their opinions would "clear the question" as you suppose. Very often it is hard to tell with certainty whether a particular coin is authentic or not; and of course authentication services can make mistakes just like anybody else.

Even without having the coin in hand I have learned a lot from the Coin Talk discussion, so think it has been quite worthwhile.

 

Agreed. My opinion is if the coin is 17th century cast fake, it would be easy to see with the coin in hand. The owner is a long time collector so I trust his eyes. I put the 2 coins side by side for everyone judge if the same identical. Thank you for expertise Curtis Clay.

 

Thanks. That simple operation makes the comparison much easier!

Upon renewed inspection the two coins still qualify in my eyes as very probably identical, so I think both are pretty surely casts.

 

Just to be clear, Curtis, you think Pete’s coin is a cast of a genuine coin that was recut on the reverse to depict the Meta Sudan and then served as the host for the BM coin?

I wonder if a side view of the reverse fields of Pete’s coin would reveal anything—shouldn’t such re-engraving be somewhat evident?

 

For one thing, the “S” in S - C are not identical. The upper curve of the S is broader on mine. Also, the “dots” between legend breaks are present on mine, but missing on the BM example. And for another, Dr. Buttrey, who had the BM example in hand, said the arched enclosures on the base of the Meta Sudans are different.....on all three known examples. Also, I believe DonnaML sees a different object at the peak of the Meta Sudans. Please forgive me if that is an incorrect statement.

 

Excellent point @Nicholas Molinari.

 

Another point: I believe the BM example was struck, and the dies broke on striking.
What kind of mold/mould would produce such ragged lumps? It would have to have been misshapen at the time of "casting." That doesn't make sense....to me.

 

Nick,

That was my original thought, which I changed after having the idea that the Paris dupondius is probably ancient and untooled. In that case the type on the other two dupondii should also be original rather than remade, and they apparently represent a second ancient, untooled specimen alongside the Paris coin.

 

No die links from me. More importantly, none in my photo files either.

 

Would you be willing to take a side shot of the reverse field, or perhaps additional close-ups of your specimen?

 

I didn’t look for a die link with PeteB’s coin, but with the Paris’ coin.
I have found 3 close coins, but no die link.

Gallica

Gallica

Gallica

British Museum OCRE

I tried to improve the lecture of the coins. But I’m not a digital retoucher.
You can easily check the similarities and differences, by downloading and superposing the photos (1000 PPI high), which is a much better way to improve them than juxtaposition.

 

I’ll get the coin out of the bank, but my photographic skills and equipment are very weak. I don’t think I can do a side shot....but, I’ll try.

 

To be precisely accurate, I thought that by contrast to the clearly and perfectly spherical object (acroterium?) at the top of the conical spire of the @PeteB example, the object at the top of the British Museum example was more oblong. However, after looking again at the British Museum example, I believe it's possible that the object on top is in fact spherical, and that what I thought was the bottom portion of an oblong object is, in fact, the topmost portion of the conical spire itself, with the two blurred together. (Note that on the @PeteB example, one can see that the spire is not entirely conical, but flares outwards slightly at the very top.)

What concerns me more about both the @PeteB and the British Museum examples is the very fact that the object at the top of the spire on both -- whether spherical or oblong -- clearly lacks the two additional "leaves" (water spouts?) of the tripartite object at the top of the Meta Sudans as represented on all of the genuine Titus Colosseum sestertii, and the (probably?) genuine Paris example of the Meta Sudans dupondius. As well as the parallel provincial examples of similar fountains in Corinth and elsewhere, as shown above and in the article I posted.

I can't help being suspicious that the most logical explanation for the absence of those additional "leaves" is that the @PeteB and British Museum examples -- however they were manufactured -- are 17th century forgeries modeled after the 17th century prints like the one I posted, which "imagine" a sphere at the top of the Meta Sudans. (Which was only a stump at the time those prints were created.) Why would a genuinely ancient coin be engraved to show a sphere at the top, rather than the tripartite object shown on all known genuine ancient representations from the 1st Century AD (putatively including the Paris coin) of the Meta Sudans and equivalent provincial fountains?

 

Please forget this. My old eyes were tricking me. There are no "dots."

 

Sure. As best I can do. I am no Doug Smith...by a long shot.
I also have a "360°" video, but CT doesn't accept it. It is an .mp4 file

 

I can email the video to whoever sends me their email address. Send email addresses to akropolisz@aol.com.
Another point: I use Microsoft FrontPage 2003 for my web site and it, too, will not accept an .mp4 file.
Stone age PeteB

 

I believe we can rule out the original theory that the coin was re-engraved from a different reverse die.