Nero Coin Authentic?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by arashpour, Jul 23, 2018.

  1. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    Hi All

    I got this coin and I feel likely it is authentic just want to run with few more experienced experts who are familiar with Nero provincial coins. What I find a bit odd (and I could be wrong) is that there is pitting in low areas on bust and around the bust where it connects to the field but not much on the field itself. If corroded naturally I expected to be all over same way. Am I right on my logic?

    Nero_antioch (2).jpg
     
    Paul M. and randygeki like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    Forgot to mention the weight is 14 gr
     
  4. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    Wow, I would like to know too, so just ignore me while I lurk...
     
  5. RomanGreekCoin3

    RomanGreekCoin3 Active Member

    Dont quote me on this but I might be cast. Legend looks a bit fuzzy. Others with more experience should give it a look
     
  6. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    No I don't agree , that is not a valid reason for cast it could be worn many genuine coins are worn and have faded legends.
     
  7. Jay GT4

    Jay GT4 Well-Known Member

    Casting bubbles are almost always perfectly round. Yours has what looks like irregular pits with sharp edges. I believe authentic but heavily corroded.
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  8. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    Ok Thanks @Jay GT4 I also was almost certain its authentic I only curious why only around nero face corroded and not the field in front of the face Do you see this normal and commonly seen?
     
  9. Jay GT4

    Jay GT4 Well-Known Member

    The corrosion is all over the coin, the high spots are just worn down. Who's to say? Depends how it was buried and how it was eventually cleaned...
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  10. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    Ok I see Thanks @Jay GT4 now I feel more at ease with it :)
     
  11. Ancient Aussie

    Ancient Aussie Well-Known Member

    To my way of thinking, because the neck and chin are higher relief than the outer fields that's where the corrosive chemicals would get trapped and not as easily wiped away with fingers as the outer fields, so looks correct to me.
     
  12. RomanGreekCoin3

    RomanGreekCoin3 Active Member

    Well its hard to magnify the legend on those pics. But from my screen they appeared a bit fuzzy- but as i said- dont quote me on it LOL

    April
     
  13. Jay GT4

    Jay GT4 Well-Known Member

    Click the picture :D
     
  14. Gavin Richardson

    Gavin Richardson Well-Known Member

    Mine for comparison. I do not see major red flags, but I'm no expert and do not have a trained eye. NERO ANTIOCH TET 1.jpg
     
  15. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    When coins are struck, various areas 'squish' to fill the design placing different pressures around devices than in flat fields or on high points of design. Add to this deposits that gravitate to places where relief changes and cleaning techniques that address these deposits selectively and we have to expect less than perfectly even textures on the surfaces. Especially when plans were treated in an acid bath for surface enrichment, there can be differences in the metal composition from place to place on the surface. Those places might corrode differently.

    The Kroton stater below demonstrates why we warn that cleaning something like horn silver from a coin opens us to discovering what was beneath might be uglier than what was removed. The coin is not plated and no longer has deposits around devices. Whether that is good or not is a matter of opinion. I did not see this coin before it was cleaned so I don't know which I would have chosen.
    g10300bb0464.jpg

    To me, your coin looks perfectly normal.
     
    Paul M., Curtisimo, GregH and 4 others like this.
  16. David Atherton

    David Atherton Flavian Fanatic

    Purchased from a very reputable dealer in France. I wouldn't worry about it.
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  17. RomanGreekCoin3

    RomanGreekCoin3 Active Member

    You are prob right that its genuine but something about it looks fake. Cant put my finger on it. I have a feeliong like its a modern fake.Dont take my word for it though. I like Nero coins,but something about it makes me feel like If I came across this I wouldnt buy it for myself

    The bust - although detailed- seemed flat compared to the rest of the coin, and the sight fuzziness of the legend

    Could it be a pressed fake?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2018
  18. randygeki

    randygeki Coin Collector

    Nice addition
     
  19. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    To be honest, I thought it looked a little "spongey", but that isn't too uncommon with either silver or bronze coins. The only other thing I could think of would be to check out the edge to see if there is a casting seam.
     
    RomanGreekCoin3 likes this.
  20. Mat

    Mat Ancient Coincoholic

    [​IMG]
    Nero (54 - 68 A.D.)
    AR Tetradrachm
    SYRIA, Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch
    O: NEPΩNOΣ KAICAPOΣ ΣEBAΣTOY, Laureate bust right, wearing aegis.
    R: Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, with wings spread; palm frond to left, H/IP (dates) to right.
    Dated year 110 of the Caesarian era; RY 8 (AD 61/62).
    27mm
    13.4g
    RPC I 4182; McAlee 258; Prieur 82.
     
  21. arashpour

    arashpour Well-Known Member

    Thanks Guys, between the above coin and this one which one do you suggest is more safe (more likely authentic)? I am contemplating on which one is better to buy. This other coin is more rare I guess which has aggripina on it too but it has some green patina on it is that normal for silver coins? the weight is 14.5 gram

    bpv_420196.jpg
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page