An interesting albeit corroded, tooled, and overcleaned coin from the recent "TIF's Folly" mixed lot In an old paper envelope, handwritten in pencil: Here's the coin, and what I think is the correct attribution below. Augustus sestertius moneyer C. Asinius Gallus struck 16 BC, Rome 33 mm, 20.9 gm Obv: OB CIVIS SERVATOS; wreath (CIVIS within wreath) Rev: C ASINIVS C F GALLVS IIIVIR AAAFF around large SC Ref: RIC I 370 Why do you think the previous owner wrote "NO GOOD" on the envelope? "No good" as in tooled, overcleaned, and corroded? Or "no good" as in fake? I'm not finding any red flags for fakery on this one. Any opinions? Not knowing what Ob Civis Servatos meant, I searched and found the following information from this book (ebook available online): New Varieties of Gold and Silver Coins, Counterfeit Coins, and Bullion: With Mint Values. 2nd Ed., Rearranged, Jacob Reese Eckfeldt, William Ewing Du Bois G. P. Putnam, 1851 So it looks like "ob civis servatos" roughly translates to "preserve the citizens".
Sadly, I'm not too slick at spotting fakes ... Ummm, but I am a huge fan of coins with cool eye-appeal and I feel that this coin certainly fits into my description of "cool looking" coins (I love the deserty reddish patina ... oh, and I'm always a fan of coins containing the big "SC") => so I am really hoping that my coin-cohorts who are awesome at spotting fakes determine that this new baby of yours is authentic!! (good luck)
Nothing about this coin seems out of place to me. Admittedly, I am no expert either, but I have seen enough to say with some conviction this one 'seems alright'. The weight at 20,9 is also well in line for with other sestertii of the type. No idea what the previous owner meant with 'No Good' - maybe he meant not good for being slabbed?
I'm with Steve on this one. I like that coin a lot, if it's authentic. I can't speak to that. I think it has good eye-appeal, cleaning and tooling not withstanding. I would be more than happy to have it in my collection.
I like it too-- had not seen the type before. Wish it weren't so pitted but I'll gladly keep it. I'm going through the Stack's lot this morning, slogging through attributions, starting with the better coins. It's making me feel better. I've probably found the majority of the value of the lot in the first 8 coins I've looked at. Maybe not though-- who knows what surprises may be lurking? My acute disappointment was in the Roman-heavy mix. I'm getting over it. After all, I now have a big ol' box of coins and will have fun looking for the attributions and learning about them.
I believe it to be authentic as well. It all appears right to me. I have an Augustus denarius from the Colonia Patricia mint with "OB CIVIS SERVATOS" on the reverse:
That's a great coin, Bing. Those are test marks on the reverse, but what about the circle on the jaw?
Yes, it does. Obviously it wasn't a part of the die, but I wonder if men wore earrings at the time...
I'm not sure that I'd go as far as 'no good' but the OP coin strikes me as tooled. I believe coins with the OB CIVES SERVATOS reverse are available for most of the Julio Claudians. When I sold my collection in 1974, I had a Caligula sestertius with that reverse. Civis seems to have been the earlier form.
Whatever tooling it has undergone really doesn't seem as bad as some of the monsters one sees out there. It's probably a question of tolerance but i'd be happy with this one too. Coincidentally I had reason to research Ob Civis Servatos myself a few days back, for an impressively featureless Vespasian sestertius from my mixed lot which was supposed to have Victory engraving Ob Civ Serv on a shield.
