I don’t know how to conclusively tell (if this is even possible) why the reverse details of this are so poor compared to the obverse. I mean, I can’t make out the legend even, nor the mint mark. Things that come to mind are the following: too much patination, die wear, coin wear, or even poor die engraving. Here’s my answer then: the reverse is worse due die wear and/or coin wear plus the patination obscures it further but is no more heavy that the obverse patina. Do you agree? Am I missing something? Thanks in advance
It might also be a weak strike. The reverse is GENIO AVGG ET CAESARVM NN and the mintmark looks like KB, so RIC VI Cyzicus 11a
I appreciate that. I didn’t consider the strike, but that’s another possibility. Not sure how that happens though considering the obverse is so crisp. Thanks for the attribution- i’ll look at this info tonight
I would agree on the reverse weak strike, with the obverse fully struck up. This seems to be common on antoninianii; I have a few like this.
To my eyes the reverse looks a bit more coroded than the obverse, so, whatever else is wrong with it, that side may well have been more exposed to the soil and other coins than the other while buried. Lying on one side for over 1600 years in the dark makes a difference. For comparison: I only sleep for eight hours, but on a bad day one side of my body looks worse than your Genio.
