I recently purchased this coin, because it is a fine example of . . . . I am not sure what to call it. I think it could be a "Limes Denarius" (rather than a "Fourree"). What do you think? It 'reminds me of Julia Mamaea, 222-235 AD. RIC IVii, Rome 355 "Venus, the procreator." Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG - Diademed bust right, draped. Rev: VENVS GENETRIX - Venus standing left, holding helmet and scepter; Cupid at feet, left, 2.82gm., 19mm. I do not have it in hand at present so I cannot confirm if it is Billon or Bronze. Cohen 72 - SEAR RCV II (2002), #8215, page 679
Go to Wildwinds and look for RIC 355. Click on the picture and you should get a picture with 4 examples. Click on the picture and the text below is: Coin sold at 20/12/2004 (dd/mm/yyyy) GBP 8.02 USD 15.60 *AAH* Julia Mamaea Den "Venus" LIMES Julia Mamaea AD 222-235 Base Metal Denarius "Venus, the procreator." Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG - Diademed bust right, draped. Rev: VENVS GENETRIX - Venus standing left, holding helmet and scepter; at feet, left, Cupid. Rome mint: AD 223 = RIC IVii, 355, page 99 - Cohen 72 - SEAR RCV II (2002), #8215, page 679 (VF $32 - XF $100)/ 2.06 g.
Thanks, Pish. We must be looking at two different 'Wildwinds' sites because when I look (where you tell me to) the only text that starts with "AAH" is No.4 and reads as follows (with NO reference to 'Limes' - nor do the previous three). Coin sold at 01/09/2004 (dd/mm/yyyy) GBP 32.74 USD 59.00 *AAH* Julia Mamaea Den "Venus" Julia Mamaea AD 222-235 Silver Denarius "Venus, the procreator." Obv: IVLIA MAMAEA AVG - Diademed bust right, draped. Rev: VENVS GENETRIX - Venus standing left, holding helmet and scepter; at feet, left, Cupid. Rome mint: AD 223 = RIC IVii, 355, page 99 - Cohen 72 - SEAR RCV II (2002), #8215, page 679 (VF $32 - XF $100)/ 3.25 g.
While I appreciate the clear photo and calling it Limes, I really do not recommend buying coins of this nature. I lack the certainty to tell the old ones from modern ones and would suggest putting a few dollars with the cost of this and buying a silver coin. The style does not strike me as obviously ancient and I have no way of improving my expertise in this matter. Do we have an expert on Mamaea that would like to comment? For comparison, the one below is what I would term fourree with thicker silver but style that does not strike me as correct as would be expected from an ancient counterfeit but could also be modern. I believe it is ancient but that is largely because making such a fake now would be more work than making a low grade solid silver one. I bought it from a knowledgeable dealer in 1990 for $15. I would not do that again.
I remember looking at it. All things considered I don't think it's a matter of not authentic. I thought I put it in watch but if I did I took it out. Didn't catch final price. I know I didn't bother looking up references, but Pish is right it should be listed on wildwinds.
I haven't come across a definition of what a 'Limes denarius' is that is wholly satisfactory. Granted, I haven't read up on the subject in a few years, is there more recent scholarship about them?
The style of the portrait seems "off," not resembling other portraits I've ever seen on Mamaea coins from the Rome mint. There are some denarii of Mamaea from an eastern mint, but they are limited to Annona, Concordia, Felicitas and Fortuna reverse types (RIC 366-369). Apart from the portrait style, though, the lettering, the style of the Venus Genetrix, and overall appearance of the coin seem quite genuine. I don't think it's modern. Mamaea denarii are overwhelmingly made of debased, but still metalic-appearing silver. I'd have to postulate the OP coin is a limes denarius or core of a fouree. Here are some Mamaea denarii ranging from the entire span of Severus Alexander's reign, from the 1st through 15th emissions. Note how they are different in style from the portrait on the OP coin.
It looks like there is still silver adhering to areas of both obverse and reverse, which would mean it's a fourre. Or are those just gray colored encrustations? Looks like genuine ancient counterfeit to me.
