IMP CAES P HELV PERTINAX AVG / VOT DECEN TR P COS II S C Laureate head of Pertinax right / Pertinax standing left, sacrificing over altar Sestertius, Rome January-March 193 RIC 24, BMCRE 44 Cf., Cohen 58, Sear 6056 Even though this Sestertius is far from perfect, it still is the runner-up in the list of my most expensive coins, surpassed only by my Gordian I, which albeit is in a higher grade. The reason for their high price is the low number of bronze coins issued by Pertinax. According to ERIC II and ACSearch, Sestertii of Pertinax are more than twice as rare than those of, let´s say, Didius Julianus, who ruled just two months instead of Pertinax´s three (on the other hand, Pertinax seems to have issued more than three times as many Aurei and four times as many Denarii as his successor). Sestertii of Pertinax are also rarer than those of Clodius Albinus, Pupienus and Balbinus, or even Gordian I and II, who have only ruled for three weeks. Correct me if I am wrong, but Pertinax´ Sestertii must be the rarest of all ruling Roman Emperors who issued this denomination at all (concerning portrait coins only, he is surpassed by Tiberius, however. Also of course there are some Augustae and Caesares whose Sestertii are even rarer). So let´s see your Pertinaxes :-D
That is a very attractive sestertius of Pertinax, and as you mention, a scarce coin. Congratulations. I cannot show you a sestertius, but I do have a dupondius of this emperor. I have not looked in detail at the relatively scarcity of the imperial bronzes of Pertinax, Didius Julianus andC. Albinus, but regarding the scarcity of large and medium bronzes of Pertinax, this is a topic which I explored some years ago. My conclusion: denarii of Pertinax are relatively scarce; his sestertii much scarcer than the silver, and his medium bronzes - asse and dupondiii - much scarcer still. For example, dating as far back as 1995, I was able to track down 14-16 sestertii of the type with emperor sacrificing over a tripod (like yours). However, only one dupondius of this type. You can read an interesting discussion on the topic here: (in german). http://www.numismatikforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24614&p=190988&hilit=Pertinax dupondius#p190988
Toller Dupondius und SEHR interessante Diskussion! Ich habe beim Durchstöbern von ACSearch gerade ein sehr ähnliches Exemplar (zu meinem) gefunden und es im deutschen Forum gepostet...
Very attractive examples---worn but highly desirable. Congrats guys!!!! I tried to win an example of the type (or any bronze portrait actually) a couple of times this year but the expense was just more than I was prepared to go----maybe this Autumn???
Update: I just found a Sestertius very similar to mine: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3315866 What do you guys think - is this my coin, or is at least one of them a cast???????
They aren't the same coin. On the CNG coin, look at the pit below and to the right of his beard. Where's that pit on your coin? The flan shape and other details are largely the same, although the CNG coin has more hair details. So... one or both appear to be cast.
They look almost identical but I don't believe they are the same coin. The mark midway on the neck of your new example seems absent on the other coin. The surfaces also look somewhat different but that could be the lighting. Just judging from the eyeball test your coin doesn't look obviously cast to me. Maybe yours is the real deal and the other is cast from it? Maybe a good candidate for Sear? Or possibly just return it if the uncertainty would bother you.
Roman Empire - Pertinax (193 A.D.) AE sestertius. Rome mint, 19,60 grs. 28 mm Obv: LAETITIA TEMPORVM COS II. IMP (CAES P HELV - PERTINAX AVG) Head, laureate, to right.. Rev: LAETITIA TE -MPORVM COS II / S - C Laetitia standing l. holding wreath and sceptre. Ref: RIC 17. C. 21.
For me, as well, your coin passes the eyeball or gut-feel test. The surfaces do not have the look and texture of a cast coin, in my opinion. Both examples, yours and the one you show are uncannily similar, down to the shape of the flan and the depression on the edge behind the hair. If one is a cast of the other, then it is not your example. Lets us see what other members say. If I may ask, is this an auction purchase? dealer?
I don't like either one. I agree with the idea of sending it off for an opinion. Mine is a cast and the original is not over a few hundred years old. It is not in the Paduan books but the style is not ancient.
Placed the 2 in one picture, looks like the same obverse die , different reverse. flans look the same at first glance, but they are slightly different. I'm bidding on this coin , looks like a pertinax sestertius, but I'm not sure.
IMO, the similarities are worrying... see e.g. 10-11 o'clock on the obverse. Plus JG's looks a bit "soft." If it were mine I'd probably send it back. My denarius:
The very boldness of the name alone just triggered some undefinable suspicions in me. I do not have any definitive information to say it's bad, but I'd be very, very cautious. The coin in the OP worries me. Edited to add that I will defer to those with more experience. If any of them say it's good, please disregard my suspicions. They are merely based on "gut instinct" and nothing more.
Stylistically, neither coin looks obviously fake to me. But if there's doubt, there's no doubt - unfortunately. It's only the discovery of the second coin that arouses suspicion. But if there's suspicion over a coin's authenticity; well, that's the same thing as it being fake to me. I would either take it back or get someone like David Sear to look at it.
The double die match isn't damning on its own, but the same flan means one or both are fake. Your coin seems to have extra metal and softer edges compared to the CNG coin. My guess is yours is cast and the CNG coin is the host. I'm no expert though.
I just got a reply from the seller. He actually did write (quote) "After checking the two coins, we think that the two coins are from the same mint". (!!!) In his opinion, there are enough differences between the two coins - he points out that: - "The ribbon behind the head of Pertinax is larger" - "The beard touches the edge on one coin, but not on the other" - "The letters S C are different, one C is closed" - "The tripod is larger on one coin and the S touches it" Therefore he thinks that both coins are original. Frankly, I do not see those differences. What do you think? Also he did not reply to my question about the identical flan shapes and damages and did not tell we when or where he bought the coin...
Yah, the flan shape is the biggest give-away that it's most likely a cast ... of course two coins from the same cast are gonna have slight differences, but they're still cast coins, right? ... I would bail, get my cash and scratch that dude off of my coin buying list (but that's merely "my" opinion)