Hi All I got this coin and I feel likely it is authentic just want to run with few more experienced experts who are familiar with Nero provincial coins. What I find a bit odd (and I could be wrong) is that there is pitting in low areas on bust and around the bust where it connects to the field but not much on the field itself. If corroded naturally I expected to be all over same way. Am I right on my logic?
Dont quote me on this but I might be cast. Legend looks a bit fuzzy. Others with more experience should give it a look
No I don't agree , that is not a valid reason for cast it could be worn many genuine coins are worn and have faded legends.
Casting bubbles are almost always perfectly round. Yours has what looks like irregular pits with sharp edges. I believe authentic but heavily corroded.
Ok Thanks @Jay GT4 I also was almost certain its authentic I only curious why only around nero face corroded and not the field in front of the face Do you see this normal and commonly seen?
The corrosion is all over the coin, the high spots are just worn down. Who's to say? Depends how it was buried and how it was eventually cleaned...
To my way of thinking, because the neck and chin are higher relief than the outer fields that's where the corrosive chemicals would get trapped and not as easily wiped away with fingers as the outer fields, so looks correct to me.
Well its hard to magnify the legend on those pics. But from my screen they appeared a bit fuzzy- but as i said- dont quote me on it LOL April
When coins are struck, various areas 'squish' to fill the design placing different pressures around devices than in flat fields or on high points of design. Add to this deposits that gravitate to places where relief changes and cleaning techniques that address these deposits selectively and we have to expect less than perfectly even textures on the surfaces. Especially when plans were treated in an acid bath for surface enrichment, there can be differences in the metal composition from place to place on the surface. Those places might corrode differently. The Kroton stater below demonstrates why we warn that cleaning something like horn silver from a coin opens us to discovering what was beneath might be uglier than what was removed. The coin is not plated and no longer has deposits around devices. Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion. I did not see this coin before it was cleaned so I don't know which I would have chosen. To me, your coin looks perfectly normal.
You are prob right that its genuine but something about it looks fake. Cant put my finger on it. I have a feeliong like its a modern fake.Dont take my word for it though. I like Nero coins,but something about it makes me feel like If I came across this I wouldnt buy it for myself The bust - although detailed- seemed flat compared to the rest of the coin, and the sight fuzziness of the legend Could it be a pressed fake?
To be honest, I thought it looked a little "spongey", but that isn't too uncommon with either silver or bronze coins. The only other thing I could think of would be to check out the edge to see if there is a casting seam.
Nero (54 - 68 A.D.) AR Tetradrachm SYRIA, Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch O: NEPΩNOΣ KAICAPOΣ ΣEBAΣTOY, Laureate bust right, wearing aegis. R: Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, with wings spread; palm frond to left, H/IP (dates) to right. Dated year 110 of the Caesarian era; RY 8 (AD 61/62). 27mm 13.4g RPC I 4182; McAlee 258; Prieur 82.
Thanks Guys, between the above coin and this one which one do you suggest is more safe (more likely authentic)? I am contemplating on which one is better to buy. This other coin is more rare I guess which has aggripina on it too but it has some green patina on it is that normal for silver coins? the weight is 14.5 gram