We have threads for the worst coin we bought in 2016 and for the last coin for 2016 but today's mail updated my answers for both. I did not know when I ordered this whether it would come this year or be my first coin of 2017. By posting it here, it will not be in the running for my top list for 2017. Unfortunately, it has one minor fault that prevents it from being considered as a best coin but only a couple of you will see through the ugliness to see it as anything close. We once had a thread where we were to tell what we want. I want this coin not nicer but just not barbarous. There is no way the thing is official. If it were, it would be my #1 best find. As it is: Decentius as Augustius, AE3 (18mm, 1.59g) FH3 DN DECEN TIVS AVGV / FEL TEMP REPARATIO the mintmark is partial ending in S (TRS, AQS???) There are no coins of Decentius as Augustus. I was hoping this might be Magnentius but the unclear bumps read better as DECEN than MAGNEN. The coin is much too small to be the extremely rare Magnentius Falling Horseman and it is not an FH3. Magnentius as Augustus is not abbreviated AVGV and that part is clear. The portrait is certainly barbarous in style. There is no doubt about the coin being unofficial. Being a great rarity does not mean anything when you have to tag it as unofficial. I guess this will be considered a space filler until someone comes up with the real thing.
I love barbarous imitations, and yours is special. I wonder if the end of the obverse legend is AVGG with the second G large and partially off the flan. GG is a common plural ending, although not usually on the obverse. Here is another Decentius imitation: Superb ancient imitation. DN DECENTIVS NOB CAES, bare head, draped and cuirassed, right letters in very good style, with the "A" more like an "H". /VICTORIAE DD NN AVG ET CAE /two Victories holding shield inscribed "VOT/V/MVL/X" on column, S and V to either side of column /AMB in exergue (Ambianum mint) References: RIC VIII Ambianum 6, page 122 "S" for type, but Ambianum issues do not have letters in the field, which are only on issues from Lugdunum, e.g. RIC Lugdunum 125-133, Bastien V.169-171, 174-179, and 182-189. Bastien (2nd Ed.) XVII.34 has a die-identical reverse with a Magnentius obverse in the "imitation" section. If like ancient imitations, they are discussed at my site: http://esty.ancients.info/imit/
I have a Magnentius with fallen horseman reverse (not from 2016, nor was the coin above): AE15. 7:30. 1.96 grams. Heavy and glossy dark green patina. ...NTIVS AVG Portrait probably Magnentius. /soldier spearing fallen horseman reverse of Constantinus II Found near Cambridge, England. The fallen-horseman imitations of Constantius II are extremely numerous. It is unusual, but not not really surprising, to find one accidentally paired with an obverse of Magnentius.
I was wondering if the final V (larger than the G) might even be a shoulder detail separated a bit too much rather than a letter. I am also wondering if the mullett might be recut in the die to eliminate a field letter (A or S?). I really wantto know the mintmark. My first idea was RS but Rome did not start the obverse legend with DN. It makes no difference; it is barbarous.
The mint looks like QS to me at first glance, but the style reminds of on Trier. The "V" shoulder being the shoulder makes me think Trier even more so. But being unofficial it could have drawn inspiration from anything..
To be "official" its issue must be initiated by the government. Normally that would mean it was made in a regular government mint, as opposed to being made in the basement by some private person making "coins" for personal profit or to fill a need for coins when the government has failed to do so (which was common in Britain). However, the status of some coins minted and used on the frontiers remains unresolved. There are base-metal "denarii" and "limes-falsa" which would not be accepted as official in the center of the empire that were used on the frontiers. If a general on the Rhine permits the production and circulation of base-metal denarii, are they "official"? We do not know whether those Rhine and Danube coins were ordered produced, permitted to be produced, barely tolerated, or outright treated as criminal counterfeits. One of the fun things about ancient numismatics is we don't have all the answers. There is lots of room for study and research. For reference works on the matter, see here: http://esty.ancients.info/imit/imitationrefs.html That page does not list recent articles, but it good for anything before 2011.
Thank you for the thorough answer. Much appreciated. I assume unlisted coins are a horse of a different color - coins that are not listed in authoritative catalogs.
Right. "Unlisted" is an often misused term. Sellers sometimes utilize it to raise the apparent value of a coin that is actually published, just not in some basic reference work. It might mean "not listed in RIC [Roman Imperial Coinage which was written along time ago and is missing many types]" or "not listed in the few reference works I have" or it might mean (if a major firm says so) "Not in any of the major relevant references (although it might have been mentioned in some article we have not noticed)." Rarely, some specialist really knows everything about some minor series and can claim a new type from it is actually "unlisted" (anywhere).
I see this as a possibility. The reverse style is a tad more official looking that the obverse. Whether it is a stolen die or a better copy would be hard to prove. The whole point of ancients is that there are no fully authoritative catalogs. Certainly there are books with a great deal of information and closer to complete than most but new things keep popping up which are of interest to only a minute number of specialists. A complete and authoritative ancient coin catalog would weigh a ton and be out of date before it left the bindery. All it takes is one shovel of dirt revealing one new find. Some periods have enough questionably barbarous coins that we have to address the question of which were from a known mint and which were made by an 'independent operation'. This one is certainly barbarous but there are borderline coins of Magnentius and Decentius that will not meet complete agreement with all the specialists in the field. For that matter, I suspect we have some unofficial coins of many rulers that have slipped by because they are well done in the spirit of their day. Since all dies were hand cut, it is sometimes hard to be sure where to draw the line.
