This photo is the reverse of what I think is a plated drachm, modelled on a coin issued by Caius Caligula in Caesarea, Cappadocia around AD 37 or 38. It’s an interesting counterfeit, and I would appreciate your comments before returning it to the dealer. First of all, has anyone ever seen such ‘guidance marks’ for lettering before? Starting from the E of IMPERATOR and extending around to the N of PONT are lightly inscribed arcs between which the letters ought to be engraved. (I know that large Ptolemaic and Roman provincial coins have centering punch marks.) Also, on receipt of the coin I saw that the silver had flaked off at the bottom of the O in POT, showing bronze colour underneath. Although the weight is in range at 3.52g, the silver flaking off showing a core tells me the coin is plated. Since it was sold as an official issue (in two auctions from the same dealer!) it’s going back. I guess this piece might be ancient since there’s some porosity, which I think means a likely old manufacture. Your comments and guidance are welcome. Thank you very much.
It depends on how much you paid for it. Ancient fakes can be fun to collect but not worth the higher cost of official issues. Curious to see what the obverse looks like. Here is mine. Caligula (37-41 A.D.) AR Drachm CAPPADOCIA, Caesarea O: C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS Bare head of Caligula to right. R: IMPERATOR PONT MAX AVG TR POT Simpulum and lituus. 3.37g 18mm BMC 102. RIC 63 Sear 1798
I don't ask my friends to get in the ring and spar with me and then tie one of their arms behind their back. So, how about you show us both sides of the coin and give us the size?
Thanks to Mat and shanxi for your replies. Pardon the copy of the photos that follow. I’m limited to the cameras in my Samsung phone and Surface tablet. First, for Mat, here are the obverse and reverse together. Mat commented that perhaps I might keep the coin if it was priced as plated. Unfortunately it was not. To purchase it I needed to bid over estimate. And now that I’ll be returning it, I’m sure there will be a difference of opinion on who pays for couriers, taxes, clearance and insurance. Shanxi asked if I was certain about the flaking silver showing the core underneath. Again apologies for the dreadful enlargement below. The brown coloured area at the bottom of the O in POT is below the surface of the silver. Under a better magnification I see a clean break in the silver all the way around. That’s why I think that a silver layer covers a non-silver core. Thanks to both.
.i seen that in the top pic, but i've also seen silver coins with green copper on them from other bronze coins they were in contact with over millennia...be sure...
Agreed, the coin looks OK and may just have green encrustations. I too have had solid silver pieces have some flaking now and then. I don't worry about it. Just be careful.
Looking at both sides of the coin, I just don't see anything that says fouree. With just how valuable silver Caligula coins are I would recommend sending it off to David Sear for verification.
Thank you everyone who commented on this coin. My plan is to first send a note to the dealer with my observations. I’ll probably ask for an opinion on authenticity from David Sear, but I’m open to considering the dealer’s suggestions. Again thanks.
PS, to ease the other concern about the funky guidance lines, a quick search of AC search had some of this lovely type of provenancial Caligula showing the same uniqueness. Check out a couple with them:
I have seen many plated coins and even wrote a web site about ancient imitations: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/ The OP photo does not give me reason to think it is plated.
They are not unknown on coins struck from brand new dies but tend to wear off with a few strikes. See the reverse on this Septimius Severus from 'Emesa':
I thought the group would be interested to know how I determined this coin was plated, and how this issue was resolved. One of the members following this thread suggested that I test specific gravity. What a great idea! We know that 100% Ag = about 10.50 75% Ag, 25% Cu = 10.11 100% Cu = 8.92 As my correspondent said, “The specific gravity should be closer to silver, 10.49, than to copper 8.9. Anything below 10 would be a cause for concern. Below 9.5 it’s definitely plated.” Over a couple of days I re-tested the coin a number of times, each time getting specific gravity results between 9.3 and 9.0. (I tested a silver dollar to make sure my procedure was correct.) So I wrote to the seller with my conclusion and how I reached it. This morning I received a brief note authorizing the return for refund. The coin has been sent back. Thank you to the many forum members who commented. PS: … and I bought a macro lens for my phone to take better photos!
Did you test your testing rig with a known good silver coin(preferably modern) as well to make sure everything was correct with your setup and methodology? Edit: I see now that you did. Somehow I originally missed that. Well done. I used the technique a year or two ago to verify that a coin was solid that I was writing a paper on. I've been testing the SG of several of my coins lately for further research and think it is an excellent and often overlooked technique within the realm of Numismatics
oh oh I see that Naumann put this drachm is back up in his auction 83, lot 526, without any acknowledgement that it is plated. Currently there are 3 bids on the coin. From the listing I cannot understand how anyone would be aware that they are bidding on a plated coin. So CT readers are aware, Naumann's office did refund me the hammer price, but did not comment on my observation about flaking silver or specific gravity testing producing results consistent with a copper core. I don't mind if someone can show me I came to the wrong conclusion in what I saw or my specific gravity calculation. But I am troubled that the coin is re-offered as a solid piece without any any comment to the contrary after hearing what I believe is strong evidence that it is plated.
Specific gravity tells nothing about whether the coin is plated or not. The same result would come from the same amount of silver and copper whether alloyed uniformly or separated into a core and coating. Many unofficial coins are lower grade silver than the 'real thing'. My concern about the coin has nothing to do with it being plated or not but whether it was made in the first century or twenty-first. There are many coins that I do not consider buying because I don't know enough to be able to explain the things that don't seem just right. I would be interested in seeing what paid experts would say but sending the coin back is quicker and safer.
Just a thought...Have you considered that silver drachmae of Caligula might not have been struck from pure silver in the first place?
Even if it's not pure silver, it probably shouldn't be plated. Even a 10% silver coin wouldn't chip away leaving a copper core underneath, I don't think.
