My university has been given a modest collection of 31 Roman and Biblical coins. A student and I are collaborating on a project to catalog them properly. The image below is of a Vespasian denarius. At first glance I thought it was clearly a fourrée, especially since the bronze core seems to be peeking through the bottom left of the obverse. However, the brown stuff on the emperor’s cheek and hair seems to be protruding out from the coin, or lying on top of it. I thought a fourrée would only have bronze visible “inside” the coin, so to speak. My long-winded preface to simple question: can a fourrée look like this? The coin weighs 2.96 g.
Could be a fourree, can you post a better pix? As far as the surface corrosion do you have any guess as to the composition? Is it copper, copper-oxides, organic, or dirt? I'd imagine that fourrees can attract other metals to bonding on the surface thru oxidation of the insides. Oxidation of the insides can cause a reduction (causing deposition) of metals on the outsides. Essentially a clad coin, with the more chemically active material on the inside, I'd guess that fourrees have "more of a predisposition" for this type of corrosion as opposed to solid silver coins.
That is not a fourree but a solid coin that was hoarded with some copper which fused to its surface. I post a fourree of Vespasian (copper under silver) and a Domitian like yours with copper on top that is so well stuck it did not polish off as someone obviously tried. I also post a coin more like yours than you realize. In 1989 I bought a group lot of "fourrees" from a big name dealer. It included the denarius below which, at the time, had lumps of transferred base metal on top of the silver. They cleaned off. After 28 years I do not recall what I used but suspect it was lemon juice or vinegar.
Thanks very much for these responses. Maybe when I get back to the coins next week I can post a better photo. But I think Doug answered my question; it does look more like fused base metal. I'm sure this will not be the last question I have as I move through these donated coins.
Well, when I say it's a modest collection, I do mean modest. Fairly common coins in not particularly high grades. Nonetheless, every coin tells a story. And this donation (not mine) will help some college students be able to personally handle some coins from the period. It's already a good learning experience for my undergraduate assistant helping me write the catalog. It's really her project, and she's taking a classical literature directed study with me and a New Testament class. Really good way to work with 30 coins and learn some context at the same time. I'll post more photos as questions arise.
I have a couple of fourees in my collection. There is this one, completely denuded of its plating, which counterfeits the CONCORDIAE AETERNAE reverse type of Plautilla: And this one of Orbiana, which has a FECVND AVGVSTAE reverse type used by her mother-in-law, Julia Mamaea, not an official issue of Orbiana.
Cool fourree, Gavin ... interesting project for you and your student (cool) Ummm, all I have is a few sweet fourree examples (I hope that it somehow helps) Cheers (good work) Fourree Kings of Macedon, Philip III Fourre, Baktria, Indo-Greek, Hermaios Fourree => Nicephorus-II Phocas, w Basil-II
Yes, looking at as many examples as possible is probably the best education I can get. Is that a gold fouree? I bet some Byzantine merchant was really mad when he saw that bronze start peeking through…
Here's one very uncommon fourée in that the type is found more often as a fourée than solid silver. The style is also better than many solid examples imho.
Doug is correct. The Vespasian is not a fourrée for all the reasons he has given. This post has reminded me that someday I need to start my collection of Flavian fourrées, it's long overdue! I too am curious to see more of the collection your cataloguing. Modest is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm glad you posted that coin in this thread. I for the life of me cannot figure out why more of this type is found plated than solid. Were they official? Which begs many other questions. Were they the product of a talented local forger (a former mint worker?) who just happened to pick one type to copy? I'm afraid we may never have the answers to any of these intriguing questions.
I'm sure a "Fourrees for Dummies" thread has popped up here before. But can someone give me the basic version? I always understood fourrees to be a product of the following situation: Roman mint workers were slaves. They might not have had much to lose. Some would steal dies for ancient counterfeiting, covering a bronze base metal with silver or gold washes. Thus, the ancient fourrees we see are unofficial counterfeits. Is this understanding fundamentally accurate? Or is it, as I would suppose, an oversimplification? If this query has been explored ad nauseam before, perhaps someone could direct me to the relevant thread.
I know there has been some talk of fourrees, but I'm not aware of an explanatory thread. I'm afraid I'm little help when it comes to fourrees, but here is my Caesar fourree I unwittingly thought was genuine (I'll blame youth and inexperience):
Well, it's genuine all right. A genuine fourree. I find them to be every bit as interesting and collectable as official issues. Auction houses might disagree, but that's OK.
If I were going to give a primer here on fourrees it would probably be similar to the four pages here which I posted in 1997. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/fourree.html In the past 20 years, I have obtained several nicer ones that I might add to the discussion but my opinions on the concepts are there. The vast majority of fourrees were fakes made by counterfeiters and had nothing to do with the official mint. If that is true for 99% of examples, tat does not prove the case put forward by our mainstream experts that ALL fit this description. They are a subject that will never be studied fully which is probably OK since the establishment professionals have enough trouble getting funding to advance studies in official coins. I really discourage you from paying high prices for these coins. You think he was happy when he saw the silver under the gold here??? Gold sticks to silver better than to copper so this coin could have circulated quite a while before it was discovered. My favorite fourree from recent years....or half of it, anyway.
A helpful response and related webpage. I especially enjoyed the Otho denarius and that remarkable Hadrian brockage. Don't worry about having to discourage me from spending high dollar on fourrees. My wife is way ahead of you.
M. VOLTEIUS M.F. ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS VOLTEIA AR Fouree Denarius OBVERSE: Laureate & helmeted bust of Attis right; shield behind REVERSE: Cybele seated right in chariot drawn by two lions; OQ above Rome 78BC 2.9g, 18mm Cr385/4; Syd 777, Volteia 4 A PLAUTIUS ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS PLANCIA AR Fouree Denarius OBVERSE: Turreted hd of Cybele right, A PLAVTIVS before, AED CVR SC behind REVERSE: supplicant offerng palm-branch, camel behind; IVDAEVS before, BACCHIVS below Rome 55 BC 18mm, 3.2g Cr431/1, Syd 932, Hendin 741, Plautia 13 TITUS Fouree Denarius OBVERSE: CAES VESPAS AVG TR P COS III, Laureate head right REVERSE: Foreparts of two capricorns springing in opposing directions, supporting round shield inscribed S C; globe below Struck at Rome, 80/1AD 3.06g, 18mm RIC II 357 (Titus); RSC 497 JULIA DOMNA Fouree Denarius OBVERSE: IVLIA DOMNA AVG - Draped bust right REVERSE: BONI EVENTVS - Genius standing left, holding grain ears and fruit basket Struck at Rome, 193-211 AD 2.8g, 17mm RIC 608 JULIA DOMNA Fouree Denarius OBVERSE: IVLIA PIA FELIX AVG, draped bust right REVERSE: DIANA LVCIFERA, Diana standing left, holding long torch with both hands Struck at Rome, 211-217 AD Struck under Caracalla 3,1 g; 18,3 mm RIC 373A [Caracalla]
I have one fourree; bought early last year [2016] from CNG. It's of your avatar: a Lydian double silver siglos. I've been in Brazil so I haven't yet been able to get the coin or see it since buying it. It may be one of the earliest fourrees around???