While the dating of many of these are debatable CNG gives this specific original struck version to 1550 - 1560: https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=331014 My example CNG simply describes as "After Giovanni Cavino 1500 - 1570": https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=187996
OMG! what a super nice coin! i've seen these for sale early on and i thought about getting one. wish i had now. i remember telling someone awhile back about these coins of Cavinos but i couldn't remember name, but yeah nice coin! little did he know when he was aforgin' these he would become famous.
Paduans or the medals of Giovanni Cavino from the 16th century struck from his original dies are as valuable as the coins they copied but we only see a very few offered. More are casts made later from molds made from originals or earlier generations of casts. After a few generations, detail is terrible and obviously not original even to beginners. We see terms like cast, early after-cast and late after-cast. Exactly where the line is drawn between the groups is a lot like grading with opinions all over the place. The second problem is that not all cast fake sestertii and medallions are Paduans much less works of Giovanni Cavino. The book on these is PD and free online: https://archive.org/details/medalsbygiovanni00lawriala This is #32 on page 13 so it has added interest in at least having been related to the famous Cavino rather than another medallist of the same or later period. How we are suppose to tell Cavino's from works of his students is beyond me but the same problem troubles people interested in paintings and sculptures that cost millions so we get off easy. I have two from Septimius Severus. The first is a late after-cast with reverse not proper to Septimius (Nerva?). I suspect it spent years as a pocket piece but may be closer to 19th century than 16th. Second, Mars, is a bit better but still what I would call a later after-cast unless I were trying to sell it when I might be less specific and just say 'after-cast'. I've seen similar called 'early'. It is in the book as #69 so would sell for much more than the above junker. While not as many generations from a struck original, I am unclear how to say when it was made. Last is a Divus Pertinax not in the book and only standard sestertius size. It was sold to me as a Paduan by a dealer who priced it as what it is but called it more than what I consider appropriate. It is cast and the original was Renaissance or later (not 193 AD!) artwork. If the style fools you as ancient, I suggest you not buy a Pertinax quite yet. I sure would like to know for sure when it was made. It is a fake but a pretty bauble whether it was made by Cavino or another Italian of the same name. I enjoy seeing listings of these coins just to compare where the catalogers place them in the degeneration from struck to trash. There are many opinions. Ken's is a pretty nice cast but in no danger of being mistaken for an original. I agree with his take on the coin: His first link given above is particularly interesting as it is listed as struck (I tend to agree from the photo) but it is holed. It was estimated at $100 and sold for $1100 plus fluff. Opinions matter.
A fine Renaissance work of portrait art gets a large premium in my book. It's not an ancient coin, but something completely different. Unfortunately, what you usually see is the after-cast replica.
Picked this one up, on a local dutch site, paid $8 , looks like an Italian tourist coin ? cant find another one on the net.
Exactly. In their day the idea of a coin that was better than the original was accepted as an honor to the original. Today very few of us feel at all comfortable having a replica, modified or even cleaned coin. Most of the replicas we see are pretty awful compared to the originals but Cavino was an artist who honored the ancients by attempting to translate their beauty into the artistic language of his day. He did not seek to be just another Roman but the one that did things as he thought was right and the way the originals would have been done had the makers be able. Do we accept him as better than the originals? No, but I can appreciate his efforts. Compare, perhaps, a book that is made into a movie. Occasionally we see one that not only captures the spirit of the original but polishes away some of the rough spots. We will all differ in our lists of which movies make this list and Coin Talk is not the proper venue for that discussion. Ask yourself which modern coins would be admired if collecting worked the other way and Caesar Augustus could have some 21st century coins.
