Hadrian Aureus: A Tale of Subtle Differences

The four Hadrian Hispania aurei below are apparently from the same sets of dies. Can you spot the subtle differences that distinguishes one of them as a forgery? (I couldn't.)

Coin 1:



Coin 2:


Coin 3:


Coin 4:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Tough quiz. They all look good to me. But if I have to choose just one as a fake, I think I would select number one based solely on the letters (the "A" to be specific) in the legend. But, honestly, this is pure guess and I know I will be wrong.

 

Hmm. I'll take a stab at it. Coin 2's reverse looks suspicious. The devices are richly detailed yet the dotted border is indistinct at best. How? Also, it looks like it might be pressed rather than struck. There are "stutter marks" on the obverse dots, something I think I've heard is associated with pressing ("stutter marks" may not be the correct way to describe what I'm seeing).

However, without you posting that one was fake, I wouldn't have immediately thought anything was wrong with any of them.

 

Which A (there are five of them - three on the obverse, and two on the reverse)? And which coin?

FYI, both Bing and TIF are on the right track.

And I agree that it's easier to find differences given the knowledge that one of the coins is a forgery.

 

Hmm, Bing... I see what you mean about the letter A on Coin 1 (all of the As)-- the cross bar is much more defined than the As on the other coins. It also lacks two subtle bumps in the upper reverse field, like the die was smoothed. I could imagine Coin 1 being pressed rather than struck (few flow lines).

In summary, I don't know, but probably Coin 1 or Coin 2

 

I hope it's not coin 2; since it belongs to @IdesOfMarch01

 

I'll say coin 1; solely because the fabric looks cast or pressed and doesn't have flow lines like the rest. But, that could be the lighting/photo.

 

Coin 1 also doesnt seem to have as much detail in the chest area

 

2nd observation: Coin 3, directly above Hadrian's head; on the other 3 examples, the beading is visible, faintly or boldly, where on this specific piece, there is room for that device to be visible, but, there isn't the slightest hint of it. If you also take into account how neatly struck the rest of the coin is, it would seem illogical to assume that the die was warn out to extent of the beading not appearing on flan.

This is an interesting event. @IdesOfMarch01 without giving away the answer, is this a situation where the forgery is suspected solely by comparing it to other examples from the same dies?

 

I only buy from certain dealers for a reason. Anyway, coin 1 has different detail than the others. The reverse looks weakly struck in areas, but the drapery shows folds not present in the others, for example. Could be an unevenly worn die, but I'll go 1.

 

Heh, you're right. I didn't remember that one!

 

There is one characteristic of the forgery that is stand-alone -- i.e., does not rely on comparison to other coins from the same dies.

 

My eye is drawn to the raised lump over the rabbit's (?) ears. On coins 2-4, this lump has clear definition on the edges. On coin 1, is doesn't. On a modern US coin, this is indicative of a die transfer from a genuine coin. The general fabric of the coin looks like that of a die transfer forgery. The A's on the reverse, as earlier posters pointed out, have a slightly different style than the rest; they look touched up while the others look a bit crude.

I say coin #1 is the forgery.

 

I would also guess coin #1. The hair detail left of the ear does not look quite right in comparison to the other coins.

 

Coin #3

=> no, Coin #2

 

I am stumped!

 

Whichever one isn't fake, you'll probably end up buying. So you probably have the most at stake here. ha.

 

Changing my mind. Coin #3 has a raised bump between the H and A on the obverse.

 

Also a bump on the H

 

All of them. The "A's" just do not look right.