Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 8239289, member: 75937&quot;]TGIF, everyone! Today is not just Faustina Friday, it&#039;s …</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://c.tenor.com/2aZbvhVt-sEAAAAC/freaky-friday-friday.gif" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>… because this coin is <i>freaky</i>!</p><p><br /></p><p>To those with just a passing familiarity with the coinage of Faustina the Younger, this coin may not seem all that freaky. However, despite its superficial appearance, it has several features which are quite odd. It appears to be made of orichalcum. It&#039;s quite thick and heavy. The combination of obverse and reverse inscriptions and designs is not possible to explain as a hybrid produced in an official mint.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1450010[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Faustina II, AD 147-175.</font></p><p><font size="3">Unofficial orichalcum &quot;denarius,&quot; 4.52 g, 16.2 mm, 11 h.</font></p><p><font size="3">Unknown mint, AD 156-162 or somewhat later.</font></p><p><font size="3">Obv: FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right (Beckmann type 5 hairstyle).</font></p><p><font size="3">Rev: PAX AVG, Pax standing left, holding branch in extended right hand and cornucopia in left hand (reverse of Antoninus Pius, RIC 78b). </font></p><p><font size="3">Refs: Unlisted.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1450011[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Antoninus Pius, denarius, RIC 78b. Münz Zentrum Rheinland, Auction 177, <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3253951" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3253951" rel="nofollow">lot 358</a>, 14 September 2016.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p><b>This is Not a Silver Denarius</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The coin is very thick (it weighs a whopping 4.56 g but is only 16.2 mm in diameter from 9:00 to 3:00) and reminds me of a quadrans. It&#039;s brassy on the high points that show through the patina and it appears to be made of orichalcum. Unless it were originally plated with silver, I can&#039;t imagine how would this fool anyone into thinking it was a denarius. Surely nobody would try to fake a semis. Therefore, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a counterfeit made for the purposes of enriching the forger. Freaky indeed.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>This is Not a Hybrid</b></p><p><br /></p><p>Its brassy composition notwithstanding, it cannot be a hybrid accidentally produced at the Rome mint from an obverse of Faustina and a reverse type of her father, Antoninus Pius. The dates of the obverse and reverse dies are simply too far off. The obverse dates to no earlier than August, AD 156 when the FAVSTINA AVGVSTA obverse legend was introduced.[1] The reverse is a type used on a single denarius type of Antoninus Pius (RIC 78b) from his COS III period and therefore dates to no later than AD 144. That&#039;s at least a twelve-year difference, which precludes the coin being a hybrid produced at an official mint.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Dating the Coin</b></p><p><br /></p><p>As discussed above, the earliest this coin could have been produced is August, AD 156. The empress is here depicted in the Beckmann type 5 hairstyle, which was in use as late as AD 162.[2] Therefore, a <i>terminus post quem</i> for this coin of AD 156-162 is reasonable, but what about a <i>terminus ante quem</i>? What&#039;s a reasonable latest date for the coin? That’s impossible to say, because this coin was not issued officially. Even though it may have been produced with official dies or cast from official denarii, there&#039;s no telling when this might have occurred, though it&#039;s reasonable to assume it occurred when Antoninus Pius&#039;s coinage was still in circulation. I think the coin dates to no later than the Antonine period. I have assigned a date of the coin to &quot;AD 156-162 or somewhat later.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><b>How Was this Coin Made?</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The style looks quite good, and I wonder if it was made from stolen dies or cast in antiquity from authentic coins. The coin is very thick, at least twice the thickness of a genuine silver denarius of the period. The coin has rather sharp details and there is no seam around the edge of the coin to indicate it was cast. On the other hand, the flan crack on the obverse at 6:00 is only superficial, extending perhaps one-third of the way into the thickness of the flan. Such superficial flan cracks can occur, however, on struck coinage and the existence of such a partial crack is not proof of a cast forgery in the absence of other signs of casting.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1450012[/ATTACH]</p><blockquote><p><font size="3">Oblique view of the coin in question. Note the flan crack extends only superficially into the thickness of the flan, which is easily twice the thickness of a genuine silver denarius. However, there is no evidence of a casting seam around the edge of the coin.</font></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>For now, its method of fabrication must remain unclear. The discovery of other examples of the coin in the future will greatly clarify this question.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Why Was this Coin Made?</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The simple answer is that we don&#039;t know. I think the best explanation is that it is a so-called &quot;limes denarius,&quot; a coin &quot;minted either officially or pseudo-officially on the fringes of the empire out of necessity.&quot;[3] We know that these bronze denarii are more or less faithful copies of silver prototypes, but some are known to hybridize obverse and reverse dies used on separate official exemplars. Moreover, we know that they were both struck and cast; numerous molds and forgers&#039; dies used in their production have been discovered at archaeologic sites.[4]</p><p><br /></p><p><i>I&#039;d love to hear your thoughts on this coin and to see any coins you feel are relevant!</i></p><p><br /></p><p><b>~~~</b></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Notes</b></p><p><br /></p><p>1. Clay, Curtis L., <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-a-pondersome-dupondius.372253/#post-5311634" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-a-pondersome-dupondius.372253/#post-5311634">post #5</a> in &quot;Faustina Friday – a Pondersome Dupondius.&quot; <i>Coin Talk</i>, 25 Dec. 2020, <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-a-pondersome-dupondius.372253/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-a-pondersome-dupondius.372253/">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-a-pondersome-dupondius.372253/</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. I discuss this in detail <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-%E2%80%93-ivnoni-reginae-for-juno-the-queen.391604/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-friday-%E2%80%93-ivnoni-reginae-for-juno-the-queen.391604/">here</a>. See also Beckmann, Martin, <i>Faustina the Younger: Coinage, Portraits, and Public Image</i>, A.N.S. Numismatic Studies 43, American Numismatic Society, New York, 2021, p. 60.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. &quot;Limes Denarius.&quot; <i>NumisWiki - the Collaborative Numismatics Project - Thousands of Online Numismatic Books, Articles and Pages</i>, Forum Ancient Coins, <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Limes+denarius" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Limes+denarius" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Limes+denarius</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>4. <i>Ibid</i>.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in