Sabina denarius - fake or genuine

I ask for your opinion on denarius of Sabina, which I recently got.
And I found one in https://www.acsearch.info
Numismatik Naumann (formerly Gitbud & Naumann)
Auction 26, lot 575, from 14. Dec. 2014
SABINA (Augusta, 128-137). Denarius. Rome.
Obv: SABINA AVGVSTA.
Draped bust right.
Rev: IVNONI REGINAE.
Juno standing left with patera and sceptre.
RIC 395a.
Condition: Very fine.
Weight: 3.69 g.
Diameter: 17 mm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hard to say from the pic, but looks okay to me. A die match for the other one.

 

I agree with Randy. Obverse and reverse die match. Beyond that, it's difficult to say based the images.

 

Authentic. However, I'm not sure if it's a die match. Possibly.

 

Looks okay to me.

 

me 3

 

I would be concerned. There are some things I would find troubling. The first is that the two coins have essentially the same basic shape. The other is the weird shape of the letters especially the N in SABINA. Another feature that is troubling is that while the exergue line is different, the Naumann specimen does not extend to the staff, suggesting a different die, but their is a small die break on both coins right below the A in REGINAE.

 

Yah sorry, I'm thinking that it could be a fake ... as Terence stated above, the flan shape is identical (bad sign) ... and TIF stated that the dies are identical (sure, it's okay to have similar dies, but having similar dies and similar flan shape is a real double-boner)

... if there is a doubt, there is no doubt (I'd bail on it)

 

I agree with Terence. I noticed the exergue before reading his post and I think the coin in question has a strange look to it. I don't like it but can't really prove it.

 

I'm also concerned. There are too many matching anomalies to not be the same die: the small field hole in the die below the A and the two parallel lines above the portrait (scratches in die?) stand out. As mentioned, the two coins have basically the same shape. The extended exergue line is the most obvious difference but that could easily have been achieved with wax applied to the host coin before replicating. Do I see two small "mounds" in the exergue on gogili's coin? It would be helpful to view the coin's edge (not to mention a clearer overall photo). Definitely needs more investigation in my opinion.

 

Some details I try to capture with digital microscope

 

Some photos of coin edge with digital microscope

 

Some more pictures of the coin

 

Flow lines. Good sign.

 

Here's my example of the coin. Not a die match. Purchased from Pegasi in 2001.

 

A few more pictures to help evaluation of Sabina denarius:

 

I'm not that great at spotting fakes, but again, the similar flan size gives me the creeps ... but maybe it is worth sending this one to Sear?

 

Thanks for the new photos. The edge does not suggest casting. In my opinion the only perplexing issue remaining is the extended length of the exergue line on your coin. Barring a Roman die re-engraving effort the most plausible explanations for the shorter line on the Naumann coin are that the right end of the line simply did not "strike up" or that the die was partially "filled".

The similarity of flan shapes is probably coincidental as the many unique Naumann obverse striking irregularities are missing on your coin. I do notice that your coin has a slightly granular surface which is bothersome as is the general lack of expansion edge cracks. If you paid enough for the coin I think you should consider sending it to David Sear for peace of mind.

 

I paid 110 eur for the coin, probably it would be cost a lot to send a coin from eastern Europe to David Sear?