Could use help with this Domitian

I bought this on VCoins and received it yesterday. I'm a casual collector, and no sort of authenticator, but none of my copper or bronze coins look like this. It looks like it has been artificially colored and has an overall shinyness like it has a lacquer coating. The coloring is too uniform, with no wear showing on the high areas. The surfaces are an odd orange peel texture, even on high wear areas that I would expect to be worn smooth. It has good detail, for instance see the rivets in Minerva’s shield, but the overall appearance is like a tourist souvenir. Maybe this is common and I just don't get out to look at enough coins.
I searched on the Forum Ancient Coins Fake Reports site but didn’t see any like it. The Wildwinds reference page and another reference page are below:

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s2692.html

https://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?results=100&search=minerva and domitian and thunderbolt

The seller's photo is below and a few photos where I tried to show the surface texture. It would be a pretty nice coin if it were real, but I am doubtful. Does it look OK to anyone? Should I try to get it authenticated somewhere, or just send it back? Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks, Chuck

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It does have that cast copy look to it, doesn't it?

 

I'll show my ignorance, but I do not see any problem with it @Numinaut.

 

i dont see anything wrong with it...looks like maybe its been waxed or coated.

 

I don’t see I problem with it either... but I am not an expert. At one time, adding a clear lacquer to coins with rough or porous surfaces was common, ‘improving’ the rough surface and making the coin shiny. This could be what happened to your coin.

 

Thanks everyone. Three to one says it's good so far. It's actually a pretty awesome little coin if it turns out to be good.
I found an obverse die match on the CNG archive, but haven't found the whole coin anywhere yet.

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=287171

 

My Agrippa that I purchased from a reputable auction house has a similar look. I’m not troubled by it.

I am more troubled by the mark on my palm that’s there to remind me to do something, but I have forgotten what it was.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Looks authentic to me.

 

><

 

You should send it back. There is nothing wrong with the coin but there is no reason to keep a coin that makes you uncomfortable. Taking a poll among people here is not a sound way of determining authenticity. You do not trust the seller; the coin is not pleasing to you; the coin is not worth the price of a TPG certification. Send it back and buy something that makes you happy.

That mark is to remind you to be glad you have such a nice Agrippa portrait. I hope you have a mark on the other palm reminding you to enjoy the unseen reverse, too.

 

Ha! Yes, I do enjoy the reverse, though the strike is not quite as good. Here it is, so as to leave no one hanging…

 

Looks just fine to me. I like it for a specific reason. Can anyone see what is unusual about it?

 

Nice coin Numinaut, I wouldn't worry about the clear coating applied as I have had two coins from CNG auctions with similar coatings and only enhances the look in hand and not noticeable in pics.

 

No, but I'm curious.

 

..the ancient coin monster took a bite out of it?

 

that's a real neat reverse!

 

Thanks Doug. I don’t want to send it back unless it is provably false. The poor job of artificial toning and odd pitted surface made me think it might be cast, just my suspicious nature, but it does look authentic and I like it pretty well. Maybe I’ll just get out the brillo pad and “clean it up” a little… Sorry, just joking!
This forum may not be the best way to authenticate a coin, but with so many professionals and advanced collectors, it seems pretty good to me. Thanks all of you for your opinions, they are much appreciated.

 

The planchet was poorly cast and even more poorly broken off the 'tree' when separated. Clearly nobody bothered to hammer down the edges before striking. Its the kind of unusual and cool stuff I like.

If you want to part with it, it would have a happy home in my collection.

 

I don't see anything 'wrong' with the coin. It appears to be genuine, but I like Doug's advice - if you're not entirely happy, return it.

 

Thanks Ken, I think I will keep it for now. The bite is pretty neat, it shows tool marks on both sides.
A few other things stand out for me:
Minerva is standing unusually erect compared to the usual Roman deity pose.
The obverse should read “VESP PF DOMITIAN” instead of “VESP F DOMITIAN.” Was Domitian not pius?
And why “DOMITIAN”? Wasn’t the usual form “DOMITIANUS”?
Also, the references say “DIVI AUG VESP.” AUG is missing from this coin, or would be if not for the bite. The missing part is shown on the die match coin above.