ImpcacrvalvalenspfavgIoviconcervatoriavggMint alexandriaAurelius Valerius Valens (? - 317) was Roman emperor from December 316 to March 1, 317. He had been appointed co-emperor by Licinius. Events Jin Yuan Di succeeds Jin Min Di; end of the western and beginning of the eastern Jin Dynasty King Marian II of Iberia declares Christianity the official state religion Births February _ Constantine II, Roman Emperor Deaths Categories: 317 ... This is a list of Roman Emperors with the dates they ruled the Roman Empire. ... Events Huns sack Changan, capital of the Chinese Western Jin Dynasty. ... March 1 is the 60th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar (61st in leap years). ... Events Jin Yuan Di succeeds Jin Min Di; end of the western and beginning of the eastern Jin Dynasty King Marian II of Iberia declares Christianity the official state religion Births February _ Constantine II, Roman Emperor Deaths Categories: 317 ... Coin of Licinius For other Romans of this name, see Licinius (gens). ... In the first civil war between Licinius and Constantine I a truce had been made on October 8, 314, but in 316 Licinius knew this wouldn't hold for much longer. Early in December that year he appointed Valens as co-emperor to make it clear to Constantine he was fed up with his brother-in-law. Contemporary bronze head of Constantine. ... October 8 is the 281st day of the year (282nd in leap years). ... Events August 30 - Council of Arles, which confirmed the pronouncement of Donatism as a schism, and passed other canons. ... Valens had previously been dux limitis in Dacia, but otherwise we know practically nothing about him. This is problably caused by the very short time he was emperor, for after the defeat of Licinius at Campus Ardiensis on March 1 317 Constantine forced Licinius to execute Valens .
I didn't realise that Valarius Valens issued coins independently of Licinius - they are none listed by Sears. Are you sure that it is not a more common issue of Valens (364-378) ? It looks more like a post-Constantine issue.
The IOVI CONS type was only used by Constantine and his contemporaries. This coin is RIC VII Alexandria 19. BUT, as a multi-thousand dollar coin, its authenticity is suspect. There were a large number of high quality fakes of this coin made in the early 20th century, I'll see if I can find a publication on them.
Any way to get a better (larger) photo? mainly of the obverse. From looking at your obverse it looks...odd. Below are a few example of the few coins of Valerius Valens http://www.dirtyoldcoins.com/natto/id/vvalens.htm
If you have RIC volume VII, plate 24 coin 19 is the type. Comparison would suggest that the coin here is a good fake if it is fake and possibly genuine. This is not the kind of thing you expertise from a photo (not even a good photo).
Well, certainly nothing could be said for sure with such photos. I just want to see a larger, higher quality pic of the obverse as I cant see enough of the coin (maybe its my eyes) to make out hardly any detail. Not trying to expertise as much as just interested.
thank you jeromels for your replay . yes my friend Valarius Valens issued coins independently of Licinius and its very rare
Would anyone care to explain why this thread was started? The OP offered not a single word about the coin save what was cut and pasted from online sources. The photo looks nothing like something taken by a major coin dealer or museum so we have to wonder where both the coin and the photo originated. This is not the first post by this poster of questionable material. If it had been stated that the coin was found out in the fields or in grandpa's collection, our advice would have to be to show the coin to a major auction house or dealer (not the kind of dealer that does shows and sells on eBay but the kind that has a staff or experts and issues glossy catalogs). There is no such thing as an entry level Valerius Valens. A junker has potential for selling for 5 digits. The coin needs to be addressed by a professional conservator. The British Museum would be happy to look at it. On the other hand, if the poster knows the coin is a fake and has posted it here maliciously we need to move on and stop feeding the beast. Unfortunately the photo is ambiguous and offers as many flags as hopes that the coin is real. The surfaces could be glue and dirt as well as the product of ages. If the owner of this coin is seriously of the opinion that it might be real, he needs to take it through proper channels for a coin of this level and not ask amateurs like us. Of course, the OP didn't ask. Nothing was said. Why was the post made?
which is why I wanted to see a larger picture. This is the same guy who posted a fake Augustus and when it was pointed out, insisted he has collected ancients for 6 years and can assure us its not fake...when it obviously was. Then he comes to the forum with this coin...you can imagine why I wanted a bigger and better picture to look at it because if it is anything like the Augustus, its probably fake as well...and from what little I can see from what he posted...there are certainly red flags waving in my eyes...If you have an extremely rare and valuable coin you are posting, why post such poor and small pics of it? I tend to agree with Doug although I don't think it necessarily needs an expert of that caliber to conclude it is fake if, on closer inspection, it is obvious. If it IS a real find and not a glaring fake...then he WOULD need such expert opinion. One tactic when it comes to fakes is to post poor photos so the signs are obscured. I don't agree we should move on though...if a guy is posting fakes...I want the best pics I can to put on the fakes list to help warn others...this user already has one on the fakes list and I have a feeling with larger pics we would be adding what I think would be the only example of this type of coin on that list as well. So I encourage him to post more coins and more importantly, better pics of THIS coin
DEAR friends : I wonder why from my first post many writer said fake coin .. so i post this coin , yes i understand when the coin is rare it make many questions but that didnt mean its fake . i know its real and my friend who have it know that and its rare so i took the photo in his house so its not high quality ( im trying to buy it ) who like to see a better pic i will post sure and my friend you say if the coin is rare its not suitable to post it here ???? thank you all for your reaction
The first coin you posted here (Augustus) was fake...period. I did not say THIS coin was fake nor did anyone else...they said for a coin LIKE this, its certainly a possibility that one must consider. You say you have been collecting for 6 years? You MUST know then that there is a great incentive to fake such a coin for the monetary rewards it would bring if someone were to just buy it without exercising due diligence...which I urge you to do if you are thinking of buying a coin like this. you seem to already be in possession of a fake Augustus. I don't think this forum is an unsuitable place to post it for just casual opinions. Before I shelled out the money for a coin like this I would certain get all the assurance I could that it was real. The rarity will certainly make people wary...which is why I wanted to see a better photo of the coin.
Drusus : you are rash in your replay and if you wait you know why the pic like this . didnt you say your opinion in augustus (that i respect it ) and all see it and have the right to take it or leave . you see its fake and i still see it real and i know many friend who have a great experience to know it ( experience let them study hundred of roman bronze coins and ID the val valance coin ) so that not mean to go on bad words ( red flag ) sorry if my words was hard but i dont like the image somebody gave it to me
I asked you in that thread to produce ANY reliable reference to say that a coin like the augustus you posted (in bronze and in that style which looks modern) was authentic...you didnt. How are you (and your experienced friends) basing your judgement of authenticity on a coin which, in the style and metal you posted, appears never to have existed in antiquity? Do you not research the coin to see other examples? Is yours the first example? Can you refer me to anything that references the augustus coin you posted? Have you ever seen another example like your of that Augustus coin? If so...link me there. Are these friends the same ones selling these coins to you? If you honestly think that Augustus is real, thats fine but I hope you dont try to sell it as you will then become a seller of fakes.
Its a moot point. I've ordered a copy of Carson's 1958 article on the Geneva based forgeries of this coin. The photo is adequate for a die match. If it matches to one in the publication, as I suspect it will, then it is a fake.
Well, I have received the Carson article and compared this coin's dies to those in the article and on coinarchives. It is not a die match from any of the known 20th century fakes. However, neither does it match any genuine coins sold in the past eight years. When considered alongside the fact that the legend on your coin is tight and bunched up, except for the word "VALENS," the true identity of the coin is clear. What you have is a genuine coin of Licinius I, from the Alexandria mint, that has been tooled and recut to read as a coin of Valerius Valens.
