Are these Roman coins real?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by E Pluribus Unum, Mar 13, 2018.

  1. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    I bought these two coins about 20 years ago. I don't recall how much I paid for them, but it was not much. At that time I thought these were novelty coins. With no experience collecting ancient coins, I thought genuine Roman coins would be worth thousands - just like late 18th century U.S. coins. I don't know if the information below is correct or if these coins are replicas. I would like to hear what you guys and gals have to say.

    I used my iphone for the photos below so the color is off.

    COIN #1
    Obverse: Diocletian
    Date: 284–305 AD
    Metal: Bronze
    Minimum Diameter: 27.41 mm
    Maximum Diameter: 28.38 mm
    Diocletian Bronze Roman OBV.jpg

    Diocletian Bronze Roman REV.jpg

    COIN #2
    Obverse: Gordian III
    Date: 238–244 AD
    Metal: Silver
    Minimum Diameter: 22.67 mm
    Maximum Diameter: 24.81 mm
    Gordian III Silver Roman OBV.jpg
    Gordian III Silver Roman REV.jpg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    There is no reason to doubt either coin from the images you posted. The Gordian III is a rather nice coin and while the Diocletian is rough, it's not a bad coin either.
     
    E Pluribus Unum and Alegandron like this.
  4. chrsmat71

    chrsmat71 I LIKE TURTLES! Supporter

    Yeah, nice looking antoninianus of Gordian III!
     
    E Pluribus Unum likes this.
  5. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter in hoc signo vinces

    You've got what we like to call on the Forum a roach (Gordian antoninianus) - they are quite common silver coins, that some swear actually are multiplying!!!

    ;)

    The other one indeed is a Diocletian. Both I'm sure are authentic.
     
    E Pluribus Unum likes this.
  6. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter in hoc signo vinces

    You've got what we like to call on the Forum a roach (Gordian antoninianus) - they are quite common silver coins, that some swear actually are multiplying!!!

    ;)

    The other one indeed is a Diocletian. Both I'm sure are authentic.
     
  7. ancient coin hunter

    ancient coin hunter in hoc signo vinces

    You've got what we like to call on Cointalk a roach (Gordian III ant). Some swear they are actually multiplying!!! Both are authentic. ;)
     
  8. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    @Bing
    When I was an undergrad, I had to give a presentation for an art class. I had a hard time deciding on a topic until I saw these coins at the coin shop. At the time, I obtained the information by matching the coins to photos in a library book. I guessed was successful. Thanks for the confirmation. It's nice to know that collecting ancient coins won't break the bank:joyful:. I would like to start collecting Roman and Sicilian coins, but I will bring that up in a new thread.
     
    Johnnie Black likes this.
  9. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    @ancient coin hunter
    Thanks for the confirmation. It's exciting to know that these aren't replicas - this sparks my interest in collecting ancient coins. It seems these two coins (ancient coins in general) would be easy to reproduce, i.e., counterfeit. I don't how much of a problem this is with ancient coins. I weary about buying them on eBay - unless they are certified. Is there an alternative to buying ancient coins on eBay?
     
  10. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member Supporter

    The problem here is that certification of the pair would cost more than the fair value of the coins. It would be better for you to find sources (possibly including some eBay dealers) that are honest while you learn enough to protect yourself a little bit. In all honesty, most of the fakes we are shown here came to their owner in circumstances that almost guarantee they would be fake. eBay has problems but many of them are pretty obvious when you learn to read listings and avoid the red flags. Several posters here on CT sell coins. Try one of them or try them all. You may be surprised how well you do.
     
  11. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    E Pluribus Unum and ominus1 like this.
  12. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    i wouldn't have any problem buy them as authentic..welcome to the dark side! (that's what we here call ancient coin collecting):)
     
    E Pluribus Unum likes this.
  13. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    @Garvin
    Thanks for the link. Those are some beautiful coins (though the devil pic was kind of freaky), and now I can read the lettering. The reverse of the Diocletian shows the moon under the balance; whereas, the reverse of my coin depicts a star. Are these two coins variations over time?

    @Bing
    Also, for your Domitian, you stated "Struck at Aquileia, 304-305 AD." This may sound like a funny question: how do you know this without a date or mint mark? I believe this coin was minted from 284-305 AD. Was the moon on the reverse a variety minted at Aquileia during 304-305 AD?
     
  14. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    I'm not sure of which coin you are referring. Domitian served as emperor in the 1st Century AD. I'm confused, but that seems to be my normal state according to my wife.
     
  15. Orange Julius

    Orange Julius Well-Known Member

    284-305 is simply the timeframe Diocletian was emperor. Many times these coins can be narrowed down to a few years (or even a few days in some cases).
     
    E Pluribus Unum likes this.
  16. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    That would explain it. I'm going to buy a book on ancient coin collecting. Any suggestions for a newbie in this discipline?
     
  17. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    @Bing
    It the third coin you posted to the link given above by Gavin.

    I hear you.
     
  18. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    Just for clarity, you're talking about this coin:
    Diocletian 8.jpg
    DIOCLETIAN
    AE27 Follis
    OBVERSE: IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG, laureate head right
    REVERSE: SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR, Moneta standing left, holding scales & cornucopia, AQS in ex.; crescent and VI across fields
    Struck at Aquileia, 304-305 AD
    8.1g, 27mm
    RIC VI Aquileia 39a

    The "AQS" at the bottom of the reverse in exerque is a mint mark for Aquileia. The date can be narrowed down based on the legends and field marks. Since you are new to Ancients, much of what you need for dating any Roman Imperial coin is found in RIC (Roman Imperial Coinage). Some of the information is dated, but it is generally a reliable source. There are on-line resources as well.
     
  19. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Those variations are probably different "control marks." Often a mint might vary some of these marks as a means of identifying which workshop or run of coins a particular coin belongs to. If there are quality control problems, a mint supervisor can check on what (or who) is the problem.
     
  20. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    TIF likes this.
  21. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Below is how I have catalogued my Diocletian. It may help you make out features of your coin.

    The IMP stands for "Imperator." The PF stands for "Pius Felix," a standard phrase meaning "pious [and] blessed/happy/fortunate." AVG is another title; Diocletian is the Augustus.

    Note that pius is really untranslatable in present-day English. Latin pietas was sort of a mixture of devotion to gods, country, and family. Pius thus meant more than "religiously pious."

    Screenshot 2018-03-13 14.26.56.png
     
  22. E Pluribus Unum

    E Pluribus Unum Active Member

    Bing, that's the one. I was joking about the mint mark - I didn't realize the origins of the mint mark date back to the ancient days. Maybe it's because the early US coins did not bear mint marks.

    Gavin, thanks for the links. I catalog my US coins to a certain extent, but, for ancient coin collecting, I see that a detailed catalog with photos is almost a necessity to keep track of a collection.

    I need to invest in a camera - my iphone doesn't cut it. The actual color of my Diocletian is dark brown. I must have spent an hour photographing the Diocletian and that's the best I could do. There are some threads on photography here for me to review.

    In any case, it would be interesting to look in the past to see the facilities the ancients used to mint their coins. I underestimated their capabilities.

    I wouldn't want to be that guy.
     
    Justin Lee and Orange Julius like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page