Sorry, bu I don’t have pictures. Last Saturday my local dealer asked me to look at a Higley Copper a women had brought to his shop. I determined that it was a copy, probably cast in white metal was a receding coat of copper. She also had what looked to be an antanarius (sp) in the style of the 250s. I could read “IMP” and could barely make out “CAESAR,” but the rest of the letters were just gibberish. They were also much smaller than any of the lettering that appears on the coins I have in my collection or have seen. The reverse had three figures, two large ones and a smaller one the the figure on the right was holding in his or her hand. I concluded that this was some sort of copy. Was that a reasonable assumption?
If it was from the 250's CAESAR would not be spelled out fully. Not having a pic makes it a difficult question, but probably not authentic I would suppose.
Definitely fakes. The weight is way too low, you can see casting bubbles on the obverse and on the reverse the soapy look is obvious. It’s also easy to see seams on the edge of the second coin, and the metal is wrong too.
Best laugh I've had all week. Thanks, Ocat! Kudos though to the OP who made a valiant effort at describing the coin .
You can put the coin in a bowl of sulphuric acid. If it bubbles and dissolves, it was an authentic one.
There are antoniniani with small lettering. I have one of Claudius Gothicus. seth77 has a nice example you can see here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/interesting-late-roman-bronze-from-claudius-ii-gothicus.264637/
This one was not like that. It was more run together and the markings were not letters. They made no sense. It was also a large bust design, not like the one you displayed.