Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 8353323, member: 128351&quot;][ATTACH=full]1482399[/ATTACH]This is an extremely debased <i>Moneta Aug</i>. antoninianus, 2.90 g, probably minted in the last year of his reign: it looks like pure bronze. Could it be an imitation? I have nothing special to say about its mint (Trier, Cologne, elsewhere?).</p><p><br /></p><p>It was in a purse of 20 AE antoniniani of Postumus, Gallienus, Salonina, Victorinus, Tetricus I and II. In this purse were 2 Postumus coins, this one and another one :</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1482404[/ATTACH] This COS IIII antoninianus, 2.98 g, is dated 268 and generally attributed to Cologne, also to Trier. </p><p><br /></p><p>I am not a specialist of Postumus&#039; coinage. I just notice that, in ACsearch, all <i>Moneta Aug</i>. antoniniani seem to be in (debased) silver, at least they look white or grey, and are temptatively sated 261 or 263-5. For coins dated <i>cos. IIII</i> or <i>cos. V</i>, many - not all - look like bronze antoniniani, like the ones minted in Milan in 268 by Aureolus. </p><p><br /></p><p>These 2 Postumus AE antoniniani were still circulating under Tetricus and had the value of a Tetricus AE antoninianus. The <i>Moneta Aug</i>. specimen cannot be dated 261 or 263-5, when billion was a better alloy and antoniniani much heavier; it is obviously contemporaneous with the <i>cos. IIII</i> specimen and both were minted in 268. </p><p><br /></p><p>If the <i>Moneta Aug</i>. antoninianus is an imitation, the forger (or unofficial celator) carved excellent dies of good official style... A last thing : is this coin overstruck on some older AE antoninianus? Under Postumus&#039; bust there could be traces of letters not belonging to Postumus&#039; legend. But these traces could also be an illusion...[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in