https://www.ebay.com/itm/Servilia-mother-of-Brutus-as-Minerva-Roman-REPUBLIC-Denarius-Exceptional/352497386009?hash=item52127b4219:g:78MAAOSwz6pbz~rj:rk:3f:0 I guess this seller either got it wrong or is trying to deceive people
This is the same seller who is offering certificates of authenticity for $120 or $260 . The seller has some moderately nice coins. The silver coins are always shot in a manner that maximizes reflections and color saturation always looks boosted. Some cameras do that automatically but the seller's images look enhanced. Until just now I thought the coins weren't altered in any way but seeing this bronze coin makes me wonder. Overly bright reflections can certainly affect the appearance of a coin but usually it makes surface imperfections more noticeable (as is the case for this coin's obverse) rather than less. The reverse of this coin looks smoothed compared to how it looked in last month's auction images: Here's the listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Corinth-He...055068?hash=item468846d89c:g:jKgAAOSw1M9b0fH~
Wasn’t this the seller who would make up provenances, artificially tone coins, and suggest highly unrealistic values? I coukd be mistaken, but the listing style seems familiar.
Some of the coins may or may not be artificially toned (or accelerated in their toning). It's hard to say because of the supersaturated images. But yes, you're thinking of the same person. That seller used to post on CoinTalk. I forgot the handle, but the person is a woman or else was posing as a woman. After a brief stay which seemed to be mostly about promoting her coins for sale she left in a mysterious and dramatic fashion. I don't remember the user name.
The question is whether or not this coin has been altered (smoothing of the surfaces). Compare the bottom picture to the top picture. It is the same coin. The top picture is from this eBay seller and the bottom picture was from an auction that closed a month ago. Presumably the eBay seller bought the coin at that auction. Did she alter the surfaces? Are the images doctored?
I personally see no reason and am unaware of any arguments that this coin should be linked to Servilia, mother of Brutus. She was a member of a different branch of the Gens Servilia and actually this branch, the Servilii Rulli, are mostly unknown to history. When you look at the actual date, the coin having been minted circa 100 B.C. when Servilia would have been only 3 or 4, it becomes even more obvious that there's no link there at all.
Seller's just trying to make a dishonest buck. I've long had a fondness for this type; it was one of the first RR denarii I ever purchased
