This coin is a departure from my main collecting theme (Roman Imperial portrait series) but I found this piece intriguing and I thought, why not? I've spent all my money on my next travels, so I can't really afford a Glycerius right now, but I loved this piece, imperfect as it is, and made the purchase: Firstly the attribution: Denomination: AR tetradrachm; 27mm, 13.5g. Mint: Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. RY 10, CE 112 = 63-64 AD. Obverse: ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ, laureate head of Nero to right, wearing aegis. Reverse: ETOΥΣ - (ΒIP•I) Eagle with spread wings standing right on thunderbolt; to right, palm frond. Reference: McAlee 265a. Prieur 89. RPC I 4188 It comes with the following note from the dealer (who is reputable and well known here): I am reasonably sure this coin is a fouree, although the weight and style are correct for the issue and the style and state of preservation is remarkable. So while my analysis is that the area of the upper left reverse exposes a base metal core, I can not rule out that it may in fact just be an area of corrosion with some encrusted deposits/ surface oxides and struck on silver. I'm not an expert on Roman Egyptian numismatics, but i know a lot of these issues are in heavily debased silver susceptible to corrosion. So, Cointalk Brains Trust - what do you think? Fouree or a corroded official coin?
I'm going to say it's a fouree, good one though. And also it isn't Egyptian, it's Antioch. A whole different area. Can you take a pic of the eges and see if there is any seam? Sometimes you can tell that way, it would indicate a wrapping of silver. Hopefully, you didn't spend a lot on it. They are common. Here is mine. Paid less than $80 long ago. Nero (54 - 68 A.D.) AR Tetradrachm SYRIA, Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch O: NEPΩNOΣ KAICAPOΣ ΣEBAΣTOY, Laureate bust right, wearing aegis. R: Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, with wings spread; palm frond to left, H/IP (dates) to right. Dated year 110 of the Caesarian era; RY 8 (AD 61/62). 27mm 13.4g RPC I 4182; McAlee 258; Prieur 82.
Ah correct you are - Antioch. When i see "tetradrachm" and "Roman" my mind automatically turns to Egypt! I don't have it in hand yet - but will check out the edges when it arrives. Yes, it was a reasonable price, just play money really.
Your coin is McAlee 265(b), not 265(a), & the average mean weight for that issue is 14.66 gm. The missing area on the reverse may account for the light weight. The silver fineness for that issue should be about 79%, very close to the Augustus seated Tyche issues. The irregular surface on the obverse looks suspicious, so the dealer you bought the coin from is probably correct condemning it a fouree. For comparison the coin pictured below is slightly earlier.
Antioch, Syria Nero Regnal year 8, Caesarian year 110, (AD 61/62) AR Tetradrachm 25 mm x 14.05 grams Obverse: NERWNOS KAISAROS SEBASTOU, Laureate bust right, wearing aegis. Reverse: Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, palm branch before, H/IP behind. Ref: RPC4182 Ex: @Ancientnoob
I remember looking at that coin ! Fourree coins don't have to be terrible. My only fourree, this C. Norbanus. I like the Nero!
I cannot tell if the dark spots on upper left reverse are raised encrustations or lower signs of missing plating. This is downside of photos. In hand, if the dark patches are recessed then I 100% agree fourree and that is missing silver plating you are seeing. Also the green looks like verdigris and will devour a fourree core so make sure you get that under control. Nice style, but as @nerosmyfavorite68 said, some can come very nice.
I really like the obverse of your coin. I don't think it is a fouree. There is horn silver on the reverse. Usually there is corrosion underneath and that could affect the coin's weight to a degree.
