Barbarious Imitation help

I bought some imitations at the show. This one is Tetricus II, but I disagree with the dealer and do not think that it is a barbarious type, but of an official mint (SR 3090)



link if pic don't show:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-66138

opinions?

thanks.
stainless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Difficult Stainless, Since the mintmark is missing from the low strike. It has the "Look" of a Barbarian Radiate to me. But, I only have 2 years ancient collecting expierance.

 

My problem is that it doesn't look crude enough to me. the rest of my barbs that I have/had own(ed) have that "cartoon" look to them.

stainless

 

After comparing it with other examples of the type, it looks official to me too.

Could it be Mainz or Treveri mints?

 

Also, I'm pretty sure this one is a barb. But I'd like for someone to confirm it:



stainless

 

Well... Perhaps Sear 3180 (RIC 126) I do not have a photo though. (Tetricus)

 

Ah, oops. It's Tetricus II, on Tetricus. My bad. I edited it in the post. (sear 3090).

But ya, I think it's official mint

stainless

 

I feel sooooooo stuuuuuupidddddddddd.

 

Don't. lol. I typo'd

 

Lol I was gonna say Tetricus II in my reply cause thats whom examples I found matched.

 

I wish I could say for sure but I am fighting a similar question right now with my new Gallienus. There are definite barbarous coins and definite regular mint products but there are a number of coins that are on the border and hard to call. I could accept the Tetricus as official but I would not bet on it.

Now that I have dodged your question; what do you think of mine?

 

Doug, your portrait seems to match the one below very well as official.

http://www.coinproject.com/coin_detail.php?coin=79489

 

I don't see them as even close. Compare letter forms and portrait. For that matter, what does my coin read on the reverse after LAETITI? I failed to find many online photos of Gallienus branch mint products.

 

This one falls firmly in the middle and you'll probably just have to accept that there will never be a definitive answer. At the height of the crisis of the third century and the secessionist empires, coinage was pretty shabby across the board. The best barbarian imitatives looked better than the work of the official mints, and the worst of the official mints looked crudely barbarous.

I'd lean towards official, but that's how I always lean unless there's a clear indication that the coin in barbarous (cartoon portrait, illiterate legend, crazy uneven font, etc.) It's those obvious tags that make the barbarian imitations so appealing to me. Anything reasonably competent I'll allow as "official" and, when necessary, write it off as a rushed day at the mint or the work of a newbie die cutter.

 

I'd lean towards official on Stainless' coin and barbarous on Doug's; but then I've seen horrible done official coins and beautiful barbarous coins so its a tough call ( but I'm inexperinced )

 

Thanks all for the replies.

@ Doug - I wouldn't say barbarious unless someone pointed out to me it could be one. It looks more like an official to me..

What do you guys think about the second one (the Augustus)? I think imitation becuase of the reverse.

stainless

 

I have an opine on DS's coin, but I am much too stupiddddd to look foolish twice in one thread !!!! Where is my dunce cap ????