This is another one from the Sept. 2013 Goldberg mixed lot, just now getting around to it. The coin had no label or attribution. The portrait and a bit of the legend suggest Tetricus. ERIC is woefully incomplete for him. I don't know what to call the denomination. The coin is 17 x 19 mm, 3 mm thick, 6.4 gm. That doesn't seem very antoninianus-y. Help is appreciated. Is it RIC 90? That's the only one I've found that has an N on the reverse after AVG. I don't see an anchor in her left hand though.
Looks like tetricus I to me too. And as far as being a heavy coin, its better then mine that I recently posted at 1.8g.
According to Hevetica's tables, there are a few with AVG N. Such as RIC V2 57, 59 and 90; plus Schulski 5a and Cunetio Hoard 26. I'd have to do more research to see which fits your coin.
OK, Helvetica's spreadsheet was moderately helpful. There is a Victory reverse with "...AVG N" but the letters preceding are COMES and the letter before AVG is not an S. That leaves Laetitia as the only other option. Still no definitive answer to the catalog number. Seemingly clear is that it is Tetricus, he is radiate and cuirassed, and the reverse is Laetitia. The four possibilities from Helvetica's spreadsheets are: If obv is IMP TETRICVS PF AVG and rev is Laetitia with wreath and baton or wreath and anchor, it is RIC 90 (common) If obv is IMP TETRICVS PF AVG and rev is Laetitia with purse and anchor, it is an ancient imitation (Normanby hoard, 207, common) If obv is IMP C TETRICVS PF AVG and rev is Laetitia with wreath and anchor, it is Schulzki 5a (rare) If obv is IMP C TETRICVS PF AVG and rev is Laetitia with wreath and anchor, it is and ancient imitation (Normanby 195, scarce) Given the lack of legend I guess that's as far as I can take it. The weight is still puzzling. It's more than twice as heavy as the average Tetricus antoninianus. Was quality control that bad or is this a barbaric imitation?
As soon as I saw the coin, I thought the portrait a little strange and possibly 'unofficial', generally when 'official' the portrait is less 'cartoony', but as we have discussed previously, the cut off point for official/unofficial was where.....???
a few....... its still hard to tell though, if 'unofficial' its far from the rough end of the scale and very nice. The weight is a little odd, which could lend more weight to this theory, but the heavy ones do turn up.......I have a few real 'fatties' which are official.
Is there a chance that the coin was struck on two stacked flans fused together by the pressure of striking? I don't understand the way the borders and edges line up. The dies look official to me.
man, the obverse bust detail is amazing, the hair and beard work is fantastic. doesn't strike me as barbish.
The oddness of the flan brings to mind this 5.1g Victorinus which I noticed in the Oct 2013 G&M auction : http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=685855 While the OP coin doesn't look like a 'typical' Tetricus portrait, IMO I think there's enough stylistic variance in the official issues for this one to be accommodated.
Actually, when I first looked at it I thought it was a sandwich of three layers-- two thin outer layers and one fat inner layer, almost as if another thicker coin had been clad. The 11:00-2:00 obverse rim and 1:00-3:00 reverse rim gave rise to the suspicion. However, the remainder of the coin shows no such evidence of fused layers, so my conclusion was that this is just a strange flan. I could be wrong. If it was made from three flans, those must've been heated as one to flow temperature before striking with dies or else there would be visible lines all around the rim.
