Mark Antony Legion II denarius, 32-31 BC - legit?

This is a coin that I have had for a few years, buying it as a type coin. I know that this type has quite a few fakes out there, and I'm wondering now if this is one of them.

The coin has been cleaned and the surfaces are slightly porous. That might be due to environmental factors - I've seen this with many ancients. The flan is somewhat narrow and thick, not the broader shape that I have seen with other legionary denarii.

Are there fakes of Legion II?

Thanks

3.81 grams

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Have you checked the FAC Fake Ancient Coins database? It is a lovely coin, but without further research, I cannot say for sure. Below are three MA Legio II coins in my collection.

 

Thanks

I did check Forum, but the categories don't appear to include Roman Imperatorial coinage, which includes the Mark Antony legionary denarii. The first category, for Roman coins, is Imperial - the twelve Caesars and proceeds to move forward from there.

The Forgery Network isn't much help either.

I'll keep looking.

 

Search for « Mark Antony Leg II » and you’ll find many examples.

 

It worked! Thanks.

So far, as I look at the myriad types, the obverse of this coin, listed on VCoins, seems to come closest for the obverse:



I've been focusing on the eagle's head and wings. I find the treatment of those on my coin odd and quite crude, but here is another coin that approximates that treatment. Obviously getting a die match is virtually nil.

I notice that the fields are quite flat with my coin, with only a slight concave surface on the eagle-standards side, which I assume was the hammer die. I don't think my coin is a cast, no sign of filing or a gate on the edge. And, the graininess of the fields is due in part to the Photoshop shake reduction feature that I used for the photo.

Bottom line: still thinking....

 

For comparison purposes here are mine acquired over recent years.


17.22 mm 3.17 g


18.27 mm 3.14 g


16.24 mm 2.94 g

This last one is pretty difficult to discern but in the hand it does appear to be Legio II.

From my comparison of fakes, for my better examples with less wear, I have focussed on the number of beads or dots on the standards and the number of oars and angle of mast on the Galley.
With the really well worn ones it is more difficult to determine fakes from details and there are so many to view that I tend to get overloaded. I have a fallback position that if they are really battered and scratched they are somewhat worse than a faker might make them so probably OK. I know this is a somewhat naive
stance to take but it works for me.
@Bing has posted some great links on this series in the past that I also refer to.

 

There are two members of CT and FAC that I have relied upon in the past to help identify fake from authentic. @curtislclay and @Jay GT4

I keep looking at your example @robinjojo and thinking something looks off, but for the life of me I can't put my finger on it. I'm sure one of the two people above can spot if there is something wrong.

 

Thank you for posting your coins.

I was actually doing what you described last night - counting oars, mainly but also comparing styles from coin to coin. I had to take a break because the whole process was getting to be a little too much. I'll resume today.

 

Thanks

I agree that there is something odd about the coin. Could it be a contemporary imitation? Or, could be a modern die struck fake? A cast coin it is not.

This coin, by the way, came to me from the UK, eBay, but not from that seller of fakes. I forgot the name, but it is something like Antiquiti. That seller has posted nothing but fake coins and antiquities for years on eBay.

 

Another example for comparison. The OP coin seems (to me) to be "too good to be true." These legionary coins seem to have been hastily struck. But....

The Triumvirs. Mark Antony. Autumn 32- spring 31 BC. AR Denarius (3.50 gm, 6h, 16mm). Legionary issue. Patrae(?) mint. Obv: Praetorian galley right. ANT • AVG above, III • VIR • R • P • C below. Rev: Aquila right between two signa; LEG-II across lower field. Crawford 544/14; CRI 349; Sydenham 1216; RSC 27. Tiny punch mark above LEG letters

 

Thanks

Yes, the OP coin generally doesn't have the roughness that one would expect of this type. I do notice that there is a dot between ATN and AVG, but I have seen this variety online, including Bing's third posted coin. There are stylistic differences in the lettering and eagle, to name two. The eagle's head on mine seems closer to a duck's, but again I see variation with that as well. The styles of the standards, particularly the ornaments differ, but that also occurs from coin to coin within a given legion.

One theory concerning these legionary denarii is that the basic dies were created in quantity without the legion legend, which was added later to produce coins for each legion, based on need.

 

There is an excellent Forum thread on the Antony legionary series with very informed posts by both Curtis Clay and Andrew McCabe, especially when it comes the the fake LEG PRI denarii. It's well worth the read for anyone who collects the legionary series.

Not all of these are rough and pitted. I have several that have very smooth fields. I suspect the picture is making the fabric look "off"

 

Yes, I think a Photoshop feature that I use for the picture, which is supposed to compensate for my unsteady hands, "shake reduction" might have made the surfaces grainer than they actually are. This feature creates points of light on blurry areas, creating the effect of better focus. As I mentioned in the OP the coin is somewhat porous, suggesting that it was cleaned at some point and the original surface altered.

Here are a couple more pictures of the OP coin with a flash and natural light:

Flash:



Natural Light:

 

EDIT
Let's try this again:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=70907.0

Here is the Forum link.

 

Did you try going to the site, highlighting and copying the address and pasting it into your post? I've done that in the past without a problem.

 

If it's from the ebay seller Antiquiti... that's not a good sign. He has listed lots of fakes.

In your latest natural light images, I think the porosity of your coin doesn't look natural. There are also some strange circular holes on the reverse, which don't look like corrosion pits to me.

 

He said that it's not from Antiquiti.

 

Did he? I understood it differently. Well it would be useful to know who the eBay seller was.

 

I went back to my eBay purchase history in 2020. The seller is lifepik77, who is based in the Surrey, UK and has been a seller since February 2004.

He has a mix of Roman and Greek coins, along with some ancient jewelry and artifacts.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_ssn=lifepik77&_sop=10

He has a few owls currently listed, and they seem okay to me.

 

Here is my LEG II