I would be interested to hear some opinions about this siliqua of Constantine III, with Roma seated on the reverse. Lugdunum mint, It does have some edge damage, and the head of Roma is flatly struck, and maybe a little corroded. As far as I can determine it is not a subaerat. Thanks, Eduard
I never expected anyone on cointalk to use the word "subaerat"! You may have made my day. I'd say its still a decent coin that could use probably use a bit more cleaning. The tone seems to be covering up the coin, obscuring details. In this condition, I bet it would still fetch a few hundred dollars. Do you need an attribution?
Thank you very much Ardatirion. I appreciate your comments and opinion. This is a coin I picked up at a small coin show, and I was a curious about its authenticity, or whether it may be a subaerat (same as fourree?) or not. The obverse legend is also curious: the emperors name is missing the last 's'. I would appreciate an attribution. Thanks!
I do not know enough to dare to authenticate expensive coins and this is one. RIC lists it as the later type with the VICTORI-AAAVGGG legend and later mintmark SMLD dated to 408-411. It is not the sort of coin I would buy from a small coin show dealer unless I already had great faith in him as a source. I almost think it interesting that the portrait style resembles the Trier example in RIC plates more than it does the Lyon coin but basing that on one coin is meaningless.
Thank you for your comments, Doug. This coin came along fairly inexpensively, so if it is a fake, it is not a tremendous loss. Having said that, I have checked the Fake Coins reports at Forvm, and found none like this. Also, it compares well in style with the examples in Acsearch.
