ID help real or fake?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's funny you ask. I know NOTHING about ancients, but my first impression was "fake". The strike/wear difference between the portrait and the lettering doesn't seem natural. That's just my impression. I have nothing else to back it up.

 

Very porous...wait for a consensus...

 

No bueno

 

Poor FAKE. Its a lead cast.

 

My impressions of this coin:

1. It appears to be RIC 282. Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AVG GERM COS XI, laureate right. Rev: S C in field, Domitian standing right clasping hands over altar with officer standing left; behind officer, one soldier with standard and one soldier at right with spear and shield.

2. The wear on the obverse legends and portrait appear consistent, with the fields smoothed; the areas around the letters in the legend are a bit overly smoothed and possibly that is what makes them appear to stand out and be less worn than the portrait.

3. The reverse is smoothed as well and especially the exergue appears to have been aggressively so.

I believe this coin is genuine. The most compelling reason that I believe this coin is genuine is the following: Why would a forger produce a fake with a reverse this worn? By delineating the reverse a little bit better, it would still look every bit as genuine and be worth $500+ more than this example. A forgery with a reverse that has this much wear doesn't make much financial sense.

 

IdesOfMarch01, post: 7686589, member: 39084"]My impressions of this coin:

1. It appears to be RIC 282. Obv: IMP CAES DOMITIAN AVG GERM COS XI, laureate right. Rev: S C in field, Domitian standing right clasping hands over altar with officer standing left; behind officer, one soldier with standard and one soldier at right with spear and shield.

2. The wear on the obverse legends and portrait appear consistent, with the fields smoothed; the areas around the letters in the legend are a bit overly smoothed and possibly that is what makes them appear to stand out and be less worn than the portrait.

3. The reverse is smoothed as well and especially the exergue appears to have been aggressively so.

I believe this coin is genuine. The most compelling reason that I believe this coin is genuine is the following: Why would a forger produce a fake with a reverse this worn? By delineating the reverse a little bit better, it would still look every bit as genuine and be worth $500+ more than this example. A forgery with a reverse that has this much wear doesn't make much financial sense. [Any value in the hundreds makes sense to me!]

Why would a forger cast it in lead rather than bronze? I never liked dark gray patina on Bronze. Additionally there is absolutely no trace of tooling (smoothing) on this piece. Its surfaces are "as-made" and worn.

 

It's safe to assume that neither of us have examined this coin in-hand, so assertions about its metal and smoothing (or lack thereof) are derived from the pictures and thus remain personal opinions (as I stated in my post) rather than fact.

Also, nowhere in the original post is the price of this coin mentioned. As far as either of us knows, it could have been sold for $1.00. It's possible that this particular coin sold for over $100 but I would be very surprised if this were the case.

 

What does it weigh?

 

The sharpness of the numerous small pits inclines me to believe that the coin is authentic.

 

IdesOfMarch01, posted:It's safe to assume that neither of us have examined this coin in-hand, so assertions about its metal and smoothing (or lack thereof) are derived from the pictures and thus remain personal opinions (as I stated in my post) rather than fact.

Also, nowhere in the original post is the price of this coin mentioned. As far as either of us knows, it could have been sold for $1.00. It's possible that this particular coin sold for over $100 but I would be very surprised if this were the case.

You are welcome to your opinion and thank you very much. Perhaps you will change your mind one day. I don't need to see this particular coin to be able to tell with 100% certainty that the surfaces are 100% AS MADE and worn. No evidence of smoothing exists in the EXCELLENT image.

As for its authenticity...I sincerely hope it is genuine** but I don't see anything on the coin to base that on.

You also indicated that if the coin was in better condition it could be worth $500. Value does not enter into this except that a lead fake costs very little to make. Are you aware that common 2000-P and 2000-D Sacagawea dollars (worth $1) have been extensively counterfeited?
Perhaps the OP will image several parts of the coin's edge.

** Every authenticator needs to be wrong once in awhile (when it really does not matter so much) just to keep us humble.

PS If the color is not correct in the image (Black)- then it is not lead and cast in another metal.

 

Soapy with craters and a highly desirable reverse. I don't like it.

 

It looks real to me.

 

The coin is genuine , for a such rare type the possibility to share the same dies with other specimens is very big. I found two other specimens , all three are made from the same obverse die.


https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7843948


https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-11312

 

I should expect a counterfeit to match the die pair it was copied from. SO, the coins you posted match but their surfaces are entirely DIFFERENT - especially the corroded genuine piece.

Now, note the shape of the letters on the genuine and the deformed, fatty ones on the fake. Start with the "second G" "E" "R" "M."

My guess is the edge of the OP's coin is filed to remove a seam.

Good Night All!

 

IMHO, @IdesOfMarch01 and @curtislclay are correct, the piece is genuine.

And I agree it has been smoothed as well.

 

My question is what is OP's relation to this coin? Did he buy it? Did me make it? Did he see a pic online and wonder?

 

"did he/me make it"? Really? ?? We have about the best person qualified stating it's most likely genuine. From photos that's about the best we will get.

 

My point was that OP has the strangest post history. Some are coins that are obviously his own, some are pictures obviously taken from online, and some are completely mind boggling.

It seems strange to find a random pic online and ask for authenticity help. From OP's post history, he doesn't seem to be the type to stock up on multi-hundred dollar coins. So, what's the point of this post? Just strikes me as a little odd that's all.

 

The fat letters remind me of a very fake Vespasian denarius I once bought. The font just looked off, among other things.