'dolphin and anchor' type on a Hadrian bronze ?

A friend of mine showed me this Hadrian bronze. Although imho of rather odd style, it looks old (patina, encrustations, small chips broken off) but except the style, i see some other issues here : Hadrian never made it 'COS VIII' (in fact, in the early empire only Vespasian, Titus and Domitian did), and i cannot any trace at all from this type in bronze...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I know that dougsmit had an awesome anchor & dolphin coin, but I'm pretty sure that his flip-side was Poseidon? (sadly, I'm only 50 years old, but my memory is totally shot!!)


... those damn beach parties from the 70's!!

 

Actually it looks like one of the fakes you posted a few weeks ago.

 

i hear ya, but the flan cracks and patina look quite right...

 

I don't know...but you're right, there was no COS VIII, so it looks like an engravers error, be it ancient or modern.

 

I can't find that type listed for Hadrian in any of my references. Perhaps it's a fantasy piece.

 

same here... i know this only from Titus denarii...

 

Not a known reverse for Hadrian as far as I know, and the dies are [I think] the same as this known fake...

 

My guess is a tooled 'upgrade' from a completely different reverse. The style of the portrait and the lettering just does not strike me as Roman normal but could have been touched up by someone in the 19th or 20th centuries. Part of me wants to see casting pearls on the reverse but that would seem inconsistent with my opinion that the coin was tooled since you would expect someone tooling a cast to remove the pearls. I don't have to be too specific on why I don't like the coin, I just don't. I'm not in the business of explaining my opinions for pay and would be interesting to see what David Sear would write on a certificate for this coin.

One of the great things about being an amateur coin collector is that you do not have to separate all coins into 'real' and 'fake' but only into 'would buy' and 'wouldn't touch'. I'm sure this, if genuine, would not be the first coin I have been mistaken on but my advice to your friend would be to send it to Sear or save the cost of the certificate and put it away until you find a die match from an unquestionable provenance rather like they did when they found that second Domitian II coin.

My Dolphin/anchor is a Domitian but they are also common in Titus.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac49dom.html

 

Wow! I stand corrected. It is tooled to look like a well used example of a 21st century mint state fantasy (clearly marked copy). Great research, Dionysos.

 

Is something a fake if an original never existed?

Edit: I see Dionysos has saved the day.

 

Not sure it's tooled. There's several "different" examples of the think that would make me think these are pressed fake ("doctored" in this case, or on an ancient flan).

 

nice finds, excellent comments ! wow, what a great forum this is
but my friend's coin is very well altered. to me, the patina looks 2000 years old. the coin, well... that's another thing...

 

batman is on it...

 

Thank God he is on watch ... once again, the citizens of Gotham can sleep soundly!!




God Speed, Batman => you're simply the best!!

 

Debunked in my opinion....

 

Thanx Rudi for submitting this coin for me while I waited for the email to verify my new account here. Thank you to all involved for your insight and excellent follow up...

I'd like to point out, after placing the pictures together I noticed the following.
The coin submitted by Dionysos....where the word COPY is stamped....look closely at the location of the broken piece on my example...it's clear in my mind who ever owned this prior, intentionally broken off the letter T and that specific piece because it may have been stamped COPY above it....and its seen some time in a TUMBLER UNIT...to create wear, tear and age.

I use to work for a jeweler and he used one to smooth out edges on casts.
I've seen many a fake patina before but this one I have to admit can fool many a collector, had it not been for the reverse of this coin which does not exist in Hadrian consulship which he never accepted beyond COS III.

This coin in my opinion was meant to deceive the collector unfamiliar with the COS VIII series of coins and Emperors.

 

Welcome NJM. It would seem someone tried to fool the unsuspecting.

 

Thanx for the welcome Bing!

Yes...this was clearly intentional tooling to deceive in the highest form.Actually I purchased that coin while doing my rounds as Security for a local Antiquities & Modern Gun show. I found it in a sellers display case with 100 year old gun ammunition and rare caliber rounds. It was sitting there all alone, calling my name. The seller says he traded the coin over 10 years ago and never sold it, he also said he has no idea what a Ancient Roman coin should look like. Thats when I chanced buying it for $25 CND's....I had no loop and I don't collect Hadrian coins so COS III & VIII I clearly remember in coin searches but took a chance and bought it.

 

Stick around and you might find some interesting and informative threads here on CT. A good bunch of collectors who are willing to share knowledge and expertise without snobbery.