Hey y'all, What do you think of this denarius? RIC 052, RSC 228 I think it might not be genuine due to the obv. portrait, particularly the hair style on the back of the head. Wanted a second opinion. Thanks!
Do you ahppen to have pictures of the side to check for a seam? Or are they sellers pictures? Thanks, Jacob
Thank both for your replies! Unfortunately, sellers pictures. Correct me if I'm wrong, though I also am wondering about the rev, stating "TR P" - this would be seen from October AD 97. TR P II should be seen after Dec AD 97. Furthermore, on the obv. CAES, IMP, GERM, are seen in AD 97. AUG is seen in AD 98. On the rev. COS IIII is seen in AD 101. Should this not translate into a different TR P year? In my opinion, those time frames aren't necessarily adding up. The coin itself looks genuine, the surface looks decent, though I'm hesitating about those points. - Source: Handbook of Ancient Greek & Roman Coins - Zander H Klawans.
The wear is even Iridescent toning is hard to fake Some splay lines from the strike are still present Soil deposits look naturally distributed The style is everything you would expect from a Rome mint Trajan Denarius You have yourself a genuine denarius. Lovely example with the entire legend on flan.
Everything before COS IIII are simply declarations. Non abbreviated Legend "IMPERATOR CAESAR NERVA TRAJAN AUGUSTUS GERMANICUS / PONTIFEX MAXIMUS TRIBUNA PROTESTAS CONSUL IIII PATER PATRIAE" Translated: Commander, Caesar, Nerva Trajan, Augustus, Conqueror of the Germans / High Priest, Tribune of the People, 4 Years Consul, Father of the Country. That would indeed, place your coin 101-102 AD.
I believe you have a genuine coin there. Here's mine...same reverse type with Mars marching with kit and pouch of booty, but pre-COS IIII, and with a different obverse bust type.
You guys are amazing! Thank you all very much for your feedback and for providing thorough explanations and examples. I sincerely appreciate it!!!! Thank you all again!
Yep, looks real to me, too. The portrait looking a bit "off" to you can probably be explained by the difference in style, which is amply demonstrated by comparing it to the one @Sallent posted. The style and competence of the die engraving can vary pretty widely, as you've likely noticed. While this can be a bit bewildering at times, it's also one of the fun things about ancient coins. They don't have that "sameness" of modern coins. Each one is unique it its own little way. I think it's quite a handsome coin, actually. I like the old toning on it.
