Opinions sought : Fourrée denarius?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, now you can see the silver a bit. I swear though, before it looked just like a common bronze issue. I'm feeling good right now!

 

Yeah, I'm a relative newbie though. Methinks I should have left it alone. I never doubted that ancients should be cleaned. Isn't that what you are led to believe when you make that first (and second and third and fourth...) purchase of "uncleaned ancient coins?

So did I just ruin a perfectly lovely patina? Really all I was doing was proving to myself that it was, in fact, the silver coin I thought it was.

 

Better images would help and perhaps you should post this in a separte thread. You will get more responses.

If you have removed all the patina, then, IMHO, you ruined the coin. Yes, all Ancients require cleaning. But, by all means, do not disturb the patina.

 

Well strap me to a quadriga and call me Caligula! Now it's worth $3.75 again! Glad I'm not in it for the money.

And sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

 

Imperial bronzes of this period were larger, heavier coins - the smaller bronze denomination, the as, would have been perhaps 25mm, about 8-10g. Yours could only have been a denarius or a fourree denarius.

I doubt you did much to damage it, probably just removed some tarnish. Few collectors like their silver over cleaned and shiny, but a little more cleaning might actually help the looks of your coin.

Anyway, it's certainly worth more than $3.75, and by that I don't mean its resale value.

 

Here is an opinion from one who probably has more fourrees than anyone reading this (my database says 111 but that may include errors):
Most fourrees are next to worthless, ugly and not a great example of what they are. If you are going to get just one fourree to represent the breed, I'd look for one that shows good details of what it is that makes a fourree a fourree. JA's group shot shows a nice Domitian. It is ugly but has a nice seam showing how the foil overlapped on the surface and has peeled high areas as well as a good amount of retained silver. I certainly have many that are much worse in many regards but many of them have some redeeming characteristic that made me want them. If you are going to buy just any old fourree, don't pay much.

A Parthian drachm fourree is not easy to find. I am of the opinion that this Mithradates I was overstruck on a Roman fourree denarius and that there is probably a similar explanation for most Parthians. I can't prove it.


Everyone needs a fourree serrate denarius. I gave this one away to someone who then stopped posting here. Lost interest?


I always liked the way the core fell in a crescent on Antony's cheek.


There are many reasons for buying a coin. I like to have one even if it is weak.

 

So are the "silver denarius" of Severus Alexander's time actually considered a "denarius," or is the silver content so low by this time that they are now a "fourée?" If they are "fourées," which emperor has the last true "silver denarius?"

Thanks for the info. This place is great.

 

Thanks, Zumbly. My shame is diminished somewhat. Typically the denarii seen in collections and for sale are bright and shiny though, right? I have not been to many coin shows, but always the denarii I have seen were very silvery in appearance.

 

To be fourree, a coin must have a precious metal outside and a base core. If it is just a low grade mixture of the same metals but the same all the way through, it is not fourree. By the time of Severus Alexander, it was a lot harder to make a profit making fourrees since the amount of silver in the real thing was less so you had less silver to work with and still profit. I have fourrees of Trajan Decius and Herennius Etruscus but I really doubt the maker was making a lot on the deal.

 

As Doug mentioned, late Severan Dynasty denarii have a low silver content, but they were pickled in an acidic recipe prior to striking, in order to leach the base metal out of the outer layer of the flan. This chemical process left blanks that were about .900 fine on the outside and .400 fine on the inside. These are not considered fourees, as they are not plated per se. (Incidentally, the next time this alloy combination would appear in the history of coinage would be in the 1965 Kennedy Half Dollars, which can be considered fourees.)

I see that someone bought the ANS Volume I linked to earlier. Good for you and your numismatic health. Here's another.

 

I do not consider 1965 Kennedy's fourree because they are not plated on the edges but sandwiched. The fourree of current note is the copper over zinc Lincoln cent. Actually I really prefer to reserve the term fourree to that group of plated coins made by wrapping silver foil around a copper core and striking the hot mess hard enough that the two layers are bonded. If you use enough heat and pressure, a thin layer of silver solder 'glue' is formed between the layers. Some fourrees were made with a powdered 'eutechtic' sprinkled between the layers when the packet was wrapped materially improving the chances of a firm bond. All this is explained well in the William Campbell book I quote here every chance I get but I wonder if anyone reads.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000104992965;view=1up;seq=7
You can buy a copy for $30 but recently it was put online with the other ANS monographs so you can read it free.


The above shows an edge view of a later (Julia Domna) foil fourree which has chipped at the edge showing how thick the silver is. Much earlier is an Athenian tetradrachm cut in half. Back then there was a lot more profit available due to the good silver in the real coins.

 

WOW !! The photos so clearly define the essential character of a fourree.

Once again I'm stunned by something I never considered----fourree's that predate Roman Republic issues!!??? Can the year the tetradrachm was struck ever be reasonably dated? Is it an ancient forgery of later Imperial times or earlier and more appropriately ancient?

 

I do not own one but there are fourrees of the earliest coins. My oldest is probably this Persian 1/3 siglos circa 500-485 BC.

 

Ancient imitations, including fourrees, are interesting--at least I thought so:

http://esty.ancients.info/imit/

One of the pages there emphasizes third century pieces:

http://esty.ancients.info/imit/imitseveran.html


like this unusual one of Gordian III.
21-20 mm. 11:30. 4.85 grams. (Thick)
IMP GORDIANVS PIVS FEL AVG
/PM TRP IIII COS II PP, emperor standing right holding spear and globe
RIC 92, plate 2.13, "fourth issue" 241-243. TRP IIII is 241/2.

 

The need for thin silver on third century plated coins usually makes them patchy looking even if in good condition. Thickly plated coins are really scarce after 200 AD. There is a lot of variation on style on unofficial coins. Valentinian's Gordian has relatively normal style. Mine is pretty far out. In addition to style, it shows a figure of Aequitas with a Pax legend.

 

So are fourees in "official" style actual forgeries? Or were they officially minted by local authorities on the cheap (perhaps due to a shortage of silver)? I've seen some fourees of the rare emperors I collect, at prices I can afford, and wondered whether I could include them in my portrait series as official examples.

 

This has been debated endlessly. I follow all the scholarly articles, and some of the fora that have discussed this. I think most think some obviously base-metal imitations were "tolerated", but not "official" in the sense that Rome knew anything about it and approved. I don't think fourrees were ever approved by users--silver coins had at least the value of the silver and no one would knowingly sacrifice that.

On the other hand, the lowest value coins were "token" coinage anyway and users expected them to pass in commerce and they did. If the distant borders did not have enough low-value coins shipped there officially, it is easy to understand that locals might make up the shortage, and locals, even legion commanders, might approve. Are such coins then "official"? No. Are they genuine ancient coins of the depicted emperor? Yes. Do they qualify to fill holes in a collection? If you decide they do, they do.

There are periods in history when governments knew about unofficial coinage and didn't care enough to do anything about it. (Of course, that does not apply to counterfeit gold coins.) I don't have the citation right now, but I recall that under George III (time of the American revolution) a high percentage of copper coins in circulation were "fake" in the sense of not made by the government, but tolerated nonetheless.

 

'All' is a very bad word when discussing anything. Certainly most fourrees are completely fake but who can prove that some fakers were not current or former employees of the mint working 'overtime'? We should never even assume any solid silver issue is 'all' official. I have several obviously unofficial but solid coins. These are all subjects needing further study and may never be fully understood. I do know that when I see an expert stating that he can prove something about one coin and that that proves everything about all coins, I can no longer accept his expert status.

I like Valentinian's answer but I doubt there ever will be a short answer I can accept.