EID MAR Denarius

Hello everybody,

Great coin! I think that there's no sense to be a ancient official forgery. Especially if the silver content be the same as other known specimens, since it is not a fourrée.
In my opinion, considering an ancient forgery, it must be an unofficial coinage, probably struck by peoples beyond the borders (limes) of the East side. However, the legends, although somewhat coarse, are well made.
But Brutus seems like Shaggy Rogers, giving an aspect of childlike design, as well the daggers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

WOW!! What a fascinating coin!! Based on the posts, I'm inclined to believe it's an 'unofficial' issue (i.e. not a fourree) and that makes it even more interesting to me.

 

Looks good to me. What is an ancient fake of this worth? A lot of interest expressed in this thread.

 

RRD, what an awesome coin, congrats.

~Doug

 

A short update on my search for paperwork on this coin.... nutin so far. Also, posted the coin on my blog -
http://rrdenarius.blogspot.com/

I found a link for the reference where Cassius Dio mentions the coin.

Cassius was born in 155 AD and died in 235 AD. Dio published a Roman History (Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἱστορία, Historia Romana), in 80 books, after twenty-two years of research and labor. The books cover a period of approximately 1,400 years, beginning with the tales from Roman mythology of the arrival of the legendary Aeneas in Italy (c. 1200 BC) and the founding of Rome by his descendant Romulus (753 BC); as well as the historic events of the republican and imperial eras through 229 AD. - from Wikipedia

Roman History by Cassius Dio; Book 47, Paragraph 25, line 3:

1. Now as soon as Brutus learned of the attempt of Mark Antony and of the killing of Antony's brother, he feared that some other insurrection might take place in Macedonia during his absence, and immediately hastened to Europe. On the way he took charge of the territory which had belonged to Sadalus, who had died childless and had left it to the Romans,

2. and he also invaded the country of the Bessi, in the hope that he might at one and the same time punish them for the mischief they were doing and invest himself with the title and dignity of imperator, thinking that he should thus carry on his war against Caesar and Antony more easily. He accomplished both objects chiefly by the aid of a certain prince named Rhascyporis. And after going thence into Macedonia and making himself master of everything there, he withdrew again into Asia.

3. In addition to these activities Brutus stamped upon the coins which were being minted his own likeness and a cap12 and two daggers, indicating by this and by the inscription that he and Cassius had liberated the fatherland.

Note 12 - The cap of liberty, given to slaves at the time of their manumission. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/47*.html#note12

A couple of pics I hope you think are better:

 

Here's a new auction listing for an Eid Mar denarius with an interesting history:
https://www.biddr.com/auctions/sovereignrarities/browse?a=2359&l=2602647

"This group of Denarii was discovered on a beach in Joppa, Palestine in the mid-19th century. Having spent centuries exposed to saltwater the coins had toned to a deep black, and so the well-meaning finder plated each coin with silver and pierced them to create a necklace. Unfortunately – and somewhat ironically – it is Brutus’s coin that bears the most stab wounds."

"This group is accompanied by copies of two letters, one dated 1948 from David Owen, then Director of the City Museum, Leeds, the other dated 1955 from Michael Grant, then President of the Royal Numismatic Society. Both deem the group of coins to be genuine, and the former expresses an interest in acquiring the coin."

 

Unbelievable!

Just found that the British Museum recognizes this denarius as a forgery: acquired in 1896 and previously owned by Sir Edward Herbert Bunbury, 9th Baronet,

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1896-1203-27

An aureus, which in the past was considered the only one known, is also considered a forgery now; It is this one:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_G3-RIG-11

acquired in 1825 and previously owned by George III, King of the United Kingdom, and donated by George IV

 

Too bad there's no explanation there of when and why they decided that these were forgeries.

 

Right, that would be very interesting. I wasn't able to find an explanation, but I would never have guessed that those are forgeries! Even knowing now that they are forgeries, for a reasonable price - one I could pay - I would like very much to get one of those

 

On the two BM coins, the denarius is a cast and the aureus is struck from modern dies.

Barry Murphy

 

What is the time frame of "modern? Since it was previously owned by George III, does "modern" include the time of George III ? How is it possible that the BM just realized it now?

 

The coin should be 2000 years old. Anything in the last 500 years is modern as far as ancients are concerned.

 

And in general, considering that Modern European History courses generally start around 1500! And that Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, published in 1485, was written in Modern English. And is fairly easy to read once you get used to the spelling.

 

that's really a too large time frame for my taste it leaves me speculating that maybe someone stole the original coin and replaced it with a forgery in the last decade.... even more, since the BM must have found out recently that it is a fake

 

does that mean the other two EID gold coins are likely fake?