Opinions on these three....

Hi all, just after some opinions on these three.

They arrived as part of a group, all are @20mm

Weights are 3.0,3.2 and 2.2g.

Many thanks,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These are hybrids. The obverse legend is that of Constantine I, but the reverse inscriptions read CAESARVM NOSTRORVM, which was only officially used for the princes Constantine II and Crispus. One occasionally comes across these odd ducks - I've owned several. We can argue whether they are official or not without coming to any clear conclusion, but if the style is good and there are no misspellings, I say they're official emissions in which some dies got mixed up.

 

+1

 

Is it my imagination, or do all three coins share the same obverse and reverse dies? Wouldn't that be a little odd?

 

I noticed that too. I don't think it's odd. They could have come from the same hoard, in which case die matches are not at all uncommon.

 

Interesting observations !!! Nice coins!!

 

Yeah, that sounds possible... I admit I have little idea how common die matches are in hoards. The hoard depositor may even have been an error coin collector.

 

Or a counterfeiter that stole a couple of dies, never mind they were mismatched.

 

I do not see the style as correct for the period. I suppose ancient (barbarous) counterfeits could look like this but my first thought is that they are modern.

 

Here is one I owned previously, Constantine I obverse, reverse legend belonging to the princes, but in this case the reverse legend is botched as CAEMSARVM NOSTRVM...

 

And vice versa, obverse of Constantine II, reverse of Constantine I...

 

Doug's point is a good one concerning all barbarous issues. If we eliminate style, we eliminate a huge measuring stick when it comes to vetting authenticity. I only rarely buy barbarous issues, and only if I can get them cheaply, because, who knows if they're contemporary imitations, or the work of Laszlo Forgerov, carving out crude dies in his garage in Sofia?

 

Thanks all, a lot of good points raised.
They are from the same hoard and arrived with other coins that are 100% ok, if badly cleaned.
I did not like the style but on closer examination on the first example the legends are as pitted as the flan, the second has some chatter and the third has jumped.
The pitting is due to cleaning and this was common with the 100% ok examples.
Another issue was that Ticinum never produced issues that had the Caesarum Nostrorum reverse.
I'm still considering whether they are unofficial or otherwise, if they had arrived unmarked I would have condemned them but I cannot reconcile things like the pitted legends with modern coins. (?)
A couple of other unofficial coins arrived with the same group;

 

I think that they are most certainly contemporary.

 

Those who support these being genuine: Show some other examples with small lettering in a wide border around a small wreath. I have a couple tending that direction but not quite like these.

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2432014

The Ticinum one online seem to be aligned better. I do not have one in my collection.

 

my first thought was "those look strange", the legend in the wreath...and the "dot dot dot" eyebrows.

 

When you say genuine..... you mean official?
or contemporary?
I say contemporary, not official.
The circumstances of their discovery ie. amongst genuine coins of the same type/mint and with other unnoficial coins present go a long way towards convincing me that these are not modern fakes.
But, I do think someone was being a little naughty several thousand years ago.
So to you ...... Fakius coinius mintius ..... a wrist slap from the future....bad Roman!!!!

 

I have seen no evidence they were found "amongst genuine coins". Salting uncleaned groups with 'fillers' is known. Certainly they are not official style. I have no idea how to separate ancient replica from modern. Being corroded is not, in itself, proof of anything. We have some ancient styles that have been linked to being found in circumstances that make them most likely old. I do not recognize these as anything I have seen in that category but I'm no expert and do not collect them. I can not say certainly either way but assuming they are ancient copies just because they look wrong is not right either. My question is whether we have seen this style scattered in with hoards for years or if they have just shown up and need to be studied.

 

If they had been scattered in with hoards for a while I would have expected them to feature in forums fake discussions before now?

 

I don't recall seeing wreath ribbons being that straight? They usually are spread out for the mint mark. I have several wreath coins none have ribbons like the op's. But then again I have not seen every ancient type either.