Featured FEL TEMP REPARATIO imitations

One coin type that was often imitated in ancient times was the very common ancient coin "soldier spearing fallen horseman" (SSFH) with legend FEL TEMP REPARATIO (FTR), best known as an AE2 under Constantius II after the coin reform of 348. Here is a prototype:


Large. 25-23 mm. RIC Antioch 132. 4:30. "AD 350-355". The gamma in field left identifies it as from the "first series" (among three) in this time period. It therefore dates c. 350-1.

Originals come from a few different emperors from lots of mints, lot of different field marks, and a few different postures of the "fallen horseman," and the same type soon was issued smaller and smaller, down to about 16-17 mm, so it can be fun to collect varieties.

It was often imitated in ancient times and commonly is found in Britain. When I went to small coin shows in England in the late 1980s and 1990s some small dealers had bags I could pick from of hundreds of grotty green-patinated tiny disks which upon inspection were mostly very small contemporary FTR SSFH imitations. I figure they were accumulated metal detector finds that no one wanted to buy. At the time I was more interested in the bigger and clearer examples and scarcer types, but now I wish I had bought at least one of the tiny rotten ones for comparison. (It would have cost all of 25 cents.)
Here is an example that is much larger and of better style than the coins I mentioned above:

AE18. 7:00. 2.01 grams.
An imitation in good style, not far removed from official style.
However, the legend break "A-N" is not official. The "A" behind the head belongs to the previous, larger (AE22-20) issue, and the style is slightly odd, especially the nose and horseman.
/FEL TEMP RE-[ ]TIO There may be a letter (the "P") that failed to be engraved.
In exergue: TRP
Prototype: RIC Trier page 167, size of 358 but "A" from 350.

Now for the reason I am writing. I recently got a cute imitation of almost no dollar value but of some interest.



Small. 15 mm. 1.78 grams.
Bare-headed bust right, possibly "IANVS" to right
Soldier spearing horseman, horse falling but rider upright, reaching back
possibly "FEL TE..." from 10:00.
TCON for Constantina = Arelate = Arles mint.
The surface tells me this one was almost certainly not found in Britain.
Prototype: RIC VIII Arles 273, page 224, "diameter 16-17 mm, 2.26 grams."

Cute!

The legend and the bare head make me think this is an imitation of an original in the name of Julian II, who became Caesar in 355, Augustus in 360, and died in 363.

CoinTalk has had many threads with examples of "bull" and "VOT X MVLT XX" types of Julian, but FTR SSFH types of his are hard to find in good condition and, I think, imitations of them are rare.

Please post some FTR SSFH coins of Julian or FTR SSFH imitations for any emperor. Be sure to tell us the diameter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My little FTR.


Roman Imitative Issue, (4th century A.D.)
Æ12
Minima Class
O.: Bust right.
R.: Falling Horseman // TC?
1.0g
12mm
RIC VIII Arles 224

 

I don't have any of Julian but do have some low grade examples, " they tried " is the best I can say about them.

7x8mm, 0.50g very poor effort


13x14mm, 1.31g. slightly better effort


13x10mm, 0.95g. good Obverse

 

None of mine are in good shape

Alexandria

Antioch

Arles

Lugdunum

Rome

Siscia

Thessalonica

 

My imitatives of the type vary

Decentius?? PT in exe

A tiny Constantius at 12.77 mm

and another tiny one (lots of IIIIs)

Constantius - Heraclea in better style

Cyzicus in half decent style

23.5 mm and a decent attempt and yet so far out

 

That's the type I wrote about in the OP post, with the green patina. Thanks for showing them.

I wonder if anyone has one in good shape. Nice FTR SSFH's for Julian are rare.

Thank you for showing them.

 

I bought this hoping it was Trier but I am less than certain of its official status.


This Decentius "AVGV" is a bit of a joke.


Of course imitations get really over the top. I and O only

Just I's

 

This is an interesting thread . Some of these contemporary fakes are so crude, like the ones posted by Mat & tenbobbit, it's hard to imagine they would have circulated outside of the barbarian communities.

 

They circulated all over Britain in great numbers the second half of the 4th century. I think the reason was the government did not provide many official coins so there was a great shortage. Then locals made their own coins to facilitate trade. This phenomenon has been observed many times in history.

 

I have a centionalis, Constantius II, coin. Looks like first post coin. It has A in left field on both sides of coin. Rev exergue part says TSA I think. It's a pretty sharp coin, I don't think a fake. Sorry, no pics right now. I'm confused b/c some of you have posted pics of fakes but provide the location, I'm guessing based on the mint mark. But aren't these mint marks gov't ones? Therefore, how are they imitations?

 

Not the best ones, worse in hand:

 

First, let's distinguish between modern fakes of ancient coin types and ancient imitations of ancient coin types, some of which are counterfeits intended to make a profit by deception and others of which are locally made to supply coins for commerce when the government did not get around to making enough coins.

Both types usually try to look like official coins, but only the former try hard. They will copy official types as closely as possible. The types in this thread supplement the insufficient supply of official coins and reproduce part or all of the designs, including mint marks, but are often very much smaller and cruder. They would not fool anyone, but served a purpose.

Are they "fakes"? We have had threads on "fourrés" (variously spelled) which were fakes (counterfeits) in ancient times but are now collectable, after all, they really are 1700 years old or older. The coins in this thread are best called "ancient imitations" which were part of the money system, even if they were not issued by official mints. They are not "fakes"-- they were not "intended to deceive."

 

Thanks for clarifying. I kind of understood all that but was lazy in my writing and used the word fake carelessly. However, I'm still unsure why some pics above list the location. We don't know where these fakes were made, correct, unless we go by an imitation mintmark?

 

Right. There is no reason to think the imitations were made near the official mint whose mark they copy. They were probably made where coins of that mint circulated to be copied. I am most familiar with Britain, which did not have its own mint at the time. All its official coins came from the continent and the local copies copy mint marks of mints on the continent.

 

The people copying the coins likely had something to copy from and this resulted in them copying as many aspects as they could, including the mintmark or something similar. When I was mentioning cities I was referring to what I suspect the host coin was that was being copied.

Much of the time the copier was not literate enough to know what he was copying and we have lots of spelling errors all the way through to IIIIs and OOOOs instead of legends.

If you were to compare them side by side with a coin from the original mint they would not be convincing in terms of style.

I can't give a solid example with a Fallen Horseman but I have a galley coin to illustrate my point.

A genuine mint coin:-

Constans - AE2

Obv:- D N CONSTANS P F AVG, Pearl diademed, draped & cuirassed bust right
Rev:- FEL TEMP-REPARATIO, emperor in military dress standing left on galley, holding Phoenix and labarum, Victory sitting at the stern, steering the ship
Minted in Aquileia; (//AQP dot), A.D. 348-350
Reference:– RIC VIII Aquileia 99 (C)



and an ancient imitation of the same coin produced who knows where but with good enough detail to determine that it copies a coin like the one above....

 

@maridvnvm showed an excellent "galley" imitation. Imitations tend to be smaller than the originals, but some are close to full-size:


22-21 mm. 4.20 grams.
Letter-like shapes, symbol(s) behind the head. The full-size prototype was issued in the names of Constantius II and Constans, but it is more common for Constantius II, so the odds are that the original that this coin copies is of Constantius II.
Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Letter-like shapes something like HTIITA IITHVIIT
(That's supposed to say "FEL TEMP REPARATIO"!) Star in right field, letter-like shapes in exergue--more of them than on most official mint marks.

I'd like to see more imitations from this time period.

 

A hut - Imitating Constans from Trier



Another Galley - Imitating a Constans from Trier

 

Constantine Sarmatia Devicta, Reverse in Reverse
3.64g, 18mm copying Ric vii Trier 429


Magnentius, VICT DD NN AVG ET CAES ( awesome bust, backward letters Rev )
1.5Og, 15mm Uncertain mint

 

Thanks for your elaboration and great pics. Sorry if my question is ignorant, but I am wondering how do we know what are good imitations vs genuine coins? I ask because I’ve read that multiple dies could be made of a coin design, and these dies could be made by different artists (celators?). So if you can distinguish different abilities or talent from genuine coins, then how do we know something is an imitation and not just a poor die execution? It’s easy to tell that crude, ugly examples are probably imitations because of lack of quality control, but what about the better ones?

 

Generally a mint has a consistent style about it that you can learn to recognise over time. Even the less skilled or perhaps slightly sloppy engravers follow the same style. When the style is wrong then it stands out as inconsistent. This is not a quick thing to learn however.