I recently buy this denarius of Crispina: Crispina. Augusta, A.D. 178-182. AR denarius (2.5 g). Rome mint, struck A.D. 180-182. CRISPINA AVGVSTA, draped bust of Crispina right / IVNO, Juno standing facing, head left, holding patera and long scepter; peacock at her feet facing left. RIC 283 I am worried about the cross-section of the flan, on one side it is thick (about 2 mm), and on the other thin (about 1 mm). Somebody once told me that such a situation often appears with fake coins. What you think? Thanks.
Such a situation often appears on coins which are individually struck... in other words, all ancient coins There are other things about the coin which raise more suspicion (at least to me) than does the uneven flan. All in all though I think the coin has just been subjected to a harsh environment and cleaning.
That's a normal flan. Jere M. Wickens, in his essay, "The Production of Ancient Coins," written for Bearers of Meaning: The Otillia Buerger Collection of Ancient and Byzantine Coins at Lawrence University, notes that flans "were cast en chapelet, that is, using open or closed moulds in which a number of mould hollows were connected by channels. Clear evidence for this method exists; the runners that connected the flans were not always completely removed." The chunks missing from the edge of the flan are a result of the runners (sprue) being torn off the cast flan. Coins often exhibit this. Here's one of many in my collection demonstrating this: Your coin is probably genuine, but either weakly struck or subjected to harsh chemical cleaning.
When your coin was struck the hammer die was not in good parallel with the anvil die and it came out unevenly struck. Not only the uneven thickness hints at this, but also the lack of detail in the highlights of both sides. The weight is right, so I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as being an authentic ancient.
Your coin is OK. My Crispina/Juno is a bit thin/worn too. Also, many of her coins are typically light. Not sure why.
I don't know either but that does not stop me from having an opinion. My observation is that many coins of secondary persons (women and Caesars) seem to be a bit lighter and less professionally produced than some of the coins made in the name of the Augustus. I would like to see a study of a thousand denarii of Crispina and a thousand denarii of Commodus from the same years that coins were made for her to see if this holds true. Without such a study, this is not a theory but just a wild guess. Guess #2 is that coins of less common persons are in greater demand in the hobby than the more common coins of the Augusti. That might mean that a hoard of a thousand coins of the period would be cherrypicked by sorters to include slightly lower quality Crispinas than the more common Commodus coins at any given price point. There was a time in the middle of the last century when lower grade, common denarii were available in bulk at melt. Collectors prefer nice coins and coins of persons they lack. That means we are offered lesser quality Crispinas than we are Commodus culls. Guessing is fun.
