Opinion on Domitian Dupondius please.

Yep, I saw this coin when I did my earlier search, and noticed that its obverse portrait looks a bit off too -- it actually resembles the OP coin's portrait. That's what continues to make me unsure whether the OP coin is a fake; it might just be a stylistic variation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The legend error is my fault I'm sure. I most likely looked it up in Sear and didn't pay enough attention to the legend in comparison to the book. I don't have RIC but list the Sear reference if it has one. I have only recently started to use Wildwinds and other on line references as I learn. I just need to take more careful of what I do.

I am retired now so spend more time with my coins and the books. It's only in the last few weeks that I have been more active in research. The US coins were no where near as involved. The love of the history drives me to learn more.

 

I agree with Ides on this at least to a point. I suspect what it means is that the seller is one who quotes catalog numbers derived from finding a similar coin. If his level of interest stopped with having a boat on the back and Domitian on the front, I doubt he sees anything wrong with his ID. That does not make him a crook but it does not place him on my favored sellers list either. Should we be wary of any seller who fails to take an hour researching every known reference? That would be unreasonable.

If Sear were cigarettes, he would have to have a Numismatists' General warning on every volume. "Caution: Deriving catalog numbers from this book can be hazardous to your education."

 

I was under the impression that even though Sear was far from complete it was at least a good reference for what it is.

 

His Cohen numbering is good, and beats having to look it up in French.

 

The OP coin's style is good for the issue. So, if a forgery it is a modern cast from a genuine coin. It's difficult to determine authenticity from the photo, but judging from the coin's origins, I would've steered clear of it.

 

David, looking at the coin with magnification it does not look like a casting. It may have some tooling though. I am basing this on my experience with US Large Cents from the late 18th and early 19th century. I'm no expert but have looked a quite a few of these coins. I know it's not the same thing but surface characteristics are similar.

 

here's my Domitian...non-denarius>< i'm not sure if it's a du or a ses,

 

You have the advantage of having the coin in hand and we pretty much agree that it's a cast. I don't like condemning coins from photos alone and go by the motto 'innocent until proven guilty', but in this case I think this one can be labelled a modern forgery.

 

A difficult lesson but one worth having. I wish I had somebody in my area to take it and a couple other coins to for an expert opinion but the dealers in my area only sell modern and mostly US coins. I'm glad I have the good people on this form to help me learn to make my own opinion. My last several coins are from reputable dealers and that will be my course from now on.

 

There is a slight chance it has been re-patinated, giving it a softer smooth look, on inspection near top right reverse looks like covered old patina. Otherwise nice coin alde.