Featured A hybrid Roman Republican denarius -- could it possibly be real?

I'll just write "PLATED" directly on the coin with a Sharpie. That should work!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

DonnaML, Sorry it took me all day to get to this. But how invested are you in your French genealogy? ...Particularly (and here I am So, Very, Busted) the aristocratic lines? Because, with apologies for stating the obvious, any line that was of coat armor, both this early and this late, could have multiple lines of maternal descent, going to all sorts of interesting places.
If this is something you know more about, I'd be fascinated to hear about it. ...Yes, with condolences, as called for, on some of the people involved!
If it just happened that this was not something you'd pursued, but which might be of interest anyway, you're due a caveat. With apologies, I'm not likely to be of much help, since what I have any ready facility with bounces off of Anglo-Norman descent; as such, effectively only up to the 16th century. But Just Maybe, some surname or other could leap out at me.
...Granted, since you cited Charles Cawley before I did --and are demonstrably one of the smartest people in the forum-- you've probably 'been there, done that' with all of this.
(Disclaimer: No Flattery was Used in the Making of This Film.)

 

...Please, what about, maybe, a Pilot Precise V5?

 

what is a bit suspicious for me is the perfect overlay - this is more than same engraver - could a hand engraver get things that perfectly spaced out?

 

For grins, my Hybrid, fourree Denarius pairs an obverse of M. Servilius, Cr. 327/1 with a reverse of L. Sentius, Cr. 325/1b. It was on my top 10 of 2019. You can see some unplated core metal.

Roman Republican Hybrid Denarius, mint uncertain
M. Servilius/L. Sentius. Hybrid (and fourrée?) AR Denarius, after 100 BC.
Obv. Helmeted head of Roma right; behind, Φ (M. Servilius C.f., 100 BC).
· Cr. 327/1 (obv. type)
Rev. Jupiter in prancing biga right; below horses, uncertain letter (partially off flan); in exergue, L SENTI [C F] (L. Sentius C.f., 101 BC).
· Cr. 325/1b (rev. type)
AR/AE; 3.28 grams, 21.0 mm A very rare and interesting example.
Broad flan. Brilliant and lightly toned, with golden hues. VF.

The pair of coins are:

L. SENTIUS


M. SERVILIUS

Note all pics are from Artemide.

 

Oh, dear. I didn't mean to leave an inaccurate impression. I don't want to digress for too long, but I'm afraid that there were no aristocrats in my family, in Alsace or elsewhere. My family is Jews all the way down. Just like the turtles. And there were no Jewish aristocrats in France, or anywhere else in Christendom. (Not counting any converts who may have been ennobled.) In fact, never mind being aristocrats; under Louis XIV and ever since the explusions of the late 14th century, no Jews were even allowed to live in France except in Alsace (acquired in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia), and the area of Nice and Villefranche-de-Conflent. (Lorraine and the area of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin allowed Jews but didn't belong to France at the time.)

As for my 6th great-grandfather, having a coat of arms didn't make one an aristocrat. It was something merchants could buy if they had enough money. The fact that out of all the affluent Jews in Alsace, my ancestor Abraham "the Red" Brunschwig (who lived in the town of Cernay in Haut-Rhin) was one of only a very small number who did so, is why I said that he must have been pretentious. So I mentioned the whole thing only to point out its absurdity, not to boast of aristocratic lineage! See Ingold, Denis,
Histoire de la Communauté Juive de Cernay, in Annuaire de la Société d'Histoire des Régions de Thann-Guebwiller, Tome XVIII (1990-1992), pp. 27-34 at p. 29:

"Vers 1700, Abraham Brunschwig était un des Cernéens les plus aisés de la ville apparemment, pusiqu'il se vit attributer, sans doute d'office moyennant finance, des armoiries par l'héraldiste royal D'Hozier: 'De gueules à six besants d'argent, troix, deux et un.' (Armorial de la Généralité d'Alsace, No 225). Les 'besants' (ancienne monnaie) qui meublaient son blason étaient sans doute une fine allusion à ses activités de prêteur sur gages." See also Armorial Général de France, vol. 1, Haute et Basse Alsace (1696), at p. 511, illustrating in color the arms of "Abraham Bronsvich, Juif." (Armorial général de France par Charles d'Hozier (1696-XVIIIe siècle), Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), Département des manuscrits, français, Ms 32228 à 32262, available at http://www.chateauversailles-recher...nuscrites/armorial-general-de-france-par.html, with link to vol. 1 at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1105860/f2.item -- 1er volume : Haute et basse Alsace (Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), Département des manuscrits, Français, Ms 32228; identifier ark:/12148/bpt6k1105860).)

In other words, as the Ingold article suggests, those round objects on my 6th-great-grandfather's coat of arms were actually silver coins! Perhaps I should adopt it myself. . . .

Oh, and thanks for the flattering comments. Deserved or not!

 

Great coin! While we are on the subject - this coin is not a hybrid, but is fourré:
M. Aemilius Lepidus, 58 BC, AR denarius, Rome
Obv: Veiled and laureate head of the Vestal Virgin Aemilia right
Rev: View of the Basilica Aemilia with circular shields attached to the columns.
Ref: Crawford 419/3a

 

Back on-topic. Instead of choosing one of the options I set out in my OP, I wrote a few hours ago to Perry, the proprietor of Herakles, and gave him a link to this thread, in lieu of explaining the issue all over again. Why reinvent the wheel? And, rather than proposing a specific remedy, I asked him to let me know what he thought after reading the thread. When he got back to me, he acknowledged that given all the evidence set forth in this thread, it's probably plated. As attractive as it is! As to the coin's provenance, he bought it most recently from a collector who sold him his entire collection, much of which he had purchased from Perry in the first place. Unfortunately, he doesn't remember where he bought this coin originally, but will see if he can find anything.

As to a remedy, he offered me a full refund if I want to return the coin. I asked him if I could take a little while to let him know, because I haven't yet made up my mind. He told me there's no rush. Honestly, as much as I like it, $300+ is an awful lot to have spent on something that turned out to be a fourrée. At least for me. But I still have to think about it some more.

 

Nice coin or fourree, whichever it is! This thread has been great for better understanding fourree. Thanks for posting. Great discussion! I plan to re-read this whole post. Not sure what to tell you to do with fourree coin. It is pretty cool.

 

Fourrées can be produced by several methods, some from hand-engraved dies, others from official coins via molds or transfer dies.

 

Found the thread really interesing!......
Donna I'd go with option 2....But primarily with a couple of criterias...
1. Do you want a Fouree in your collection.......(It is a nice looking coin)
2. If you did would you pay $150 for it............(It is a nice looking coin)
3. I want an official one not a fouree ...Get a full refund and and keep on looking...

 

I'm afraid I wasn't offered option 2. It's either a full refund and return it, or keep it.

 

Ooooh....That's a tough one.....
I can only say it's a nice looking coin with an interesting bit of history but not what you were expecting or paying for..It's down to thee...?.....

 

Thanks, @dltsrq, this is what I am wondering - is @DonnaML’s coin cast? How did differences between the two nearly identical coins happen? On her coin the differences seem more than loss of detail - some slight redrawing of hair and drapery lines. Did ancients have die transfer tools or does that imply modern counterfeit? Die transfer with touch up?

 

I don't want to go too far out on a limb, only to note that the skills of ancient copyists should not be underestimated. This is one of the most interesting threads of late. I wish I had the time to digest it in full.

 

The coin shows no signs whatsoever of having been cast. Nor have I seen any suggestions that the three other known examples of the identical hybrid are cast. Also, I doubt that this hybrid is a modern production. I get the impression that the British Museum and the BnF have had their copies for a long time. And I have read -- I forget where -- that there can sometimes be very small differences in otherwise identical ancient coins, representing slight alterations in the actual die rather than in the coins themselves.

 

Here is a Mule:

Got it cuz it was cool.

Roman Republic,
fourée mule,
anonymous obverse,
reverse of Q Fabius Labeo
Fourée denarius, 18mm, 2.9g, 10h; after 124 BC.
Obv.: Helmeted head of Roma right, mark of value X to left.
Rev.: Jupiter driving galloping quadriga right, hurling thunderbolt, holding reins and scepter; Q FABI in exergue.
Ref: cf. Crawford 159 (as one example of many similar obverse designs); Crawford 273/1 (reverse).
Ex: @John Anthony, From the Doug Smith Collection #384

 

By the way, I am strongly leaning today towards returning the coin for a refund. As attractive as I find it, and as interesting and mysterious as it may be, I think it would be very difficult for me to get past the knowledge that I spent that much money (I should emphasize that I mean for me, if not for many others) on something that's almost certainly a fourree, thinking that it was a genuine silver denarius. It makes me feel slightly sick to my stomach to think about it, and I'm not entirely sure that I would get over that feeling. I might feel differently if I'd spent half what I did -- even though the difference isn't so many dollars in an absolute sense, and people might think it's silly for me to draw that distinction. So unless I change my mind in the next few days, the coin will be somebody else's mystery to deal with, assuming that Herakles puts it back on the market. (If it does go on sale again, I'll be curious to see the asking price.)

And perhaps someday I'll find another example of the same type (it certainly doesn't have to have the same control number(s)!) that isn't a hybrid, and looks equally appealing to me. I must say, though, that I don't see a single one that's as nice on either VCoins or MA-Shops right now, at anything close to a price within my comfort level.

 

"When in doubt, kick it out."
I agree with you. There is no sense sweating over a coin that you are not comfortable with. The goal is to enjoy your Hobby.

 

I also remember seeing examples on CT where die makers did recut, alter, repair flaws and add legends. Agreed that it seems highly unlikely that it is modern, given the BnF example - still having trouble reconciling the NAC and GNF issues (properly paired CIIIIs) with closed AND open torque and the "allegedly fourre" issue given such very slight variations in die - the other option that I can come up with - all with this obverse are fourre from same die maker, who mismatched his obverse and reverse dies and touched up the die at some point. Interested if there are other ways to explain.