Show us your Barbarous coins!

I'm very new at this. I thought the silver was much thicker than usual.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

At the top I see SEVAL and the face strikes me as Alexander. I did not follow through but would suggest checking the reverse and see who used that type. The TASAVG is clear. My first search result:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=180603
The problem with unofficial is that anything is possible. Rules make no difference when you are not following the rules. Your job now, as I see it, is to show that I am wrong. Most coins I ID now are based on comparing with things I have seen in the past. My thought here is this is a reasonable result for a copy of the above official coin. I claim to prove nothing.

 

Here's a Constans imitation. Although the size and weight and overall style look good, there's no way the portrait is official!

 

Carausius with the famous "IIIIIII" reverse legend.




A pretty poor execution of both sides, but I sort of like the line drawing style.

 

I never expected you to be wrong. I needed a push in the right direction. Thanks again.

 

Looks like it might have been made at the same time / by the same people as Gallic empire imitations?

 

Here are two that show that some barbs were of high artistic quality and talent:
Constans.

That Constans is a bit unusual as it is actually a full 3mm+ larger than the the official version of the same type that I have.

And others were rather more heavily stylized with only the barest resemblance to the subject material.
Constantine I

This also shows abnormally large size. In this case, however, the die was small but the flan is gigantic.

 

@Inspector43

I suspect that your Probus is something very similar to the following based on what is visible (including the officina mark):-

Obv:– IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG, Radiate, bust left in imperial mantle, holding scepter surmounted by eagle
Rev:– SOLI INVICTO, Sol in spread quadriga holding whip
Minted in Cyzicus (CM in centre field, XXIQ in exe) Emission 3 Officina 4. A.D. 280
Reference:– RIC 911 Bust type H



I suspect that it has suffered something similar to this coin where the silvering on higher points has disappeared because the metal beneath it has corroded away and then when cleaned has simply wiped off. Other high points of this coin are hollow beneath:-

 

Here are a couple of my own Barbs that I either don't believe that I have shared here before or at least not for quite a while....

Claudius Ae AS - Barbarous Copying...

Obv:– TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP, bare head left
Rev:– CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI S-C, Constantia, helmeted and in military dress, standing left, holding long spear in left hand
Minted in Rome. A.D. 41-50
Reference:- RIC 95, Cohen 14, BMC 140

The style looks a little crude and the legends lack uniformity though are quite legible. It is also light, weighing in at only 7.85 gms. The die orientation is 180 degrees.



Faustina Senior - Barbarous denarius

Obv:- FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, Draped bust right
Rev:- AVGVSTA?, Aeternitas standing holding sceptre



Severus Alexander denarius Based on MARS VLTOR
Obv:– IMP SVE AL[...] AVG, Laureate head right
Rev:– MARS VLTOR, Mars advancing right, holding a spear and shield



An obligatory Radiate barb....

Tetricus II copy - Barbarous radiate copy of Antoninianus - RIC 072

Obv:– S (sic) P E TETRICVS CAES, radiate and draped bust right
Rev:– PIETAS AVGVSTOR, Sacrificial implements, spinkler, simpulum, jug and lituus
Barbarous imitation
Reference:– Copies RIC 259; Elmer 773, 777; AGK (corr.) 5a;

 

Here is my little boy, a Tetricus (I believe) barbarous coin.
I got it super cheap, the vendor alerted me to it being not 'really' roman, but i got it because i thought the symbols on the reverse look wicked

 

Here are two Eastern Celtic imitations of the Dionysus tetradrachm of Thasos. While the style is crude and somewhat abstract, and I guess "barbarian" in nature, the widespread Celts had their own civilization and culture, and were not the backwater tribes that some may think.

Danuban Celts, 1st century BC
AR tetradrachm
Obverse: Stylized portrait of Dionysus facing right.
Reverse: Stylized standing figure of Hercules holding a club right, surround dots replacing legend.
LT* 9685, variety
Rare
10.36 grams
Purchased from cgb.fr in 2021

* LT refers to “Atlas des Monnaies Gauloises” by Henri de la Tour, published in 1892.

Typically crude, with a somewhat wavy flan, as made.




Celts in Eastern Europe, Circa 2nd - 1st century BCE
AR Tetradrachm
Thasos Type
Heavily stylised head of Dionysos to right, wearing ivy wreath / Legend in pellets around central club appearing as pillar; two pellet-in-annulets to each side, zigzag pattern to right and hand(?) shaped control. Karl 612 (same dies); cf. Lukanc 1888. 16.10g, 30mm, 9h.
Good Very Fine
Rare
Lot 198, Roma E-Sale 68
Ex Helios Numismatik, Auction 5, 25 June 2010, lot 12.

 

@hotwheelsearl I like the coin with the lines. I have something similar that I have been trying to ID for a long time. Perhaps you can help. Here is a photo of it.

 

Honestly, that doesn't look barbarous to me. It appears to be an official Claudius II issue.

For some reason, at certain time periods the engravers had a tough time lining up their letter lines. A, N, M, V are the main victims, with many of them simply looking like a series of upright lines. Sometimes the A ends up looking like an H, as we see in your obv legend: ----DIIISHIIG (DIVSAVG)

Here's an aureus from Wildwinds with the same effect. It almost looks like the obv legend says "IIIIIPCCLAIIDIIISHIIG" but actually says "IMPCCLAVDIVSAVG"

 

Thanks to the lead I find that mine is Claudius II with Annona on the reverse. All the lines make some sense now on the reverse.
II III III O III II or ANNONA. Of course there is the AVG with similar characteristics.

 

I like to match the "barbarous" with the official one. Here are some imitations coupled with their official model.


Tetricus I, LAETITIA AVG reverse



Tetricus II, PAX AVG reverse



Unofficial Postumus with a Gallienus PIETAS AVG reverse from Milan (not the exact model though : my Gallienus has MP in exergue while the Postumus copies the variant with P in left field).

 

I really believe that 21st century coin collectors need to get over making up rules and expecting people millennia ago to follow or be called 'wrong'. Today we have a thousand fonts on our computers. Then there were local variations of fonts as well. The non-connection of vertical strokes that bother you was in fashion for a while in some parts of the Empire. It is your job to learn their language rather than theirs to learn yours.

 

weren’t the two-standard reverse modules larger in diameter than 16mm? or does this not matter? not sure

 

Trier flans sizes for this issue are all over the place...they are usually 16-18mm. Unofficial coins from this period are often the same size, or very close, to official coins. I even have some unofficial coins that are larger than official issues. Below is an official issue that is smaller than normal at 15x16mm.




So, flan size is probably the least reliable factor in determining official versus unofficial.

 

I feel like I’m being dragged for a simple statement that some letters look rather non standard, especially compared to contemporary stone engravings