Questionable Denarius

New purchase at a local coin show. Nice looking denarius of Glabrio, Salus, BUT, the coin is significantly underweight. Everything I can find out there is about 3.7 grams and this one is underweight, coming in at 2.9 grams. I thought the coin looked good though nobody around seemed to have a scale to weigh this before the purchase. I wonder if members can tell from my less than stellar images if they can detect something (besides the light weight) that would make them suspicious about the coin. The image of the edge (no seam visible) shows what looks like a break in the fabric of the coin and I am wondering if it may be a plated fourees. I can probably get my money back as I have bought other coins from this guy but if it a fourees I would keep it for what I payed for it. Any learned opinions welcome. Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

On weight alone I'd have to say fake. A denarius of that era was around 3.8g, give or take a little.

Though your photos are terrible, so it's hard to see if perhaps this is just a heavily corroded coin (ie. very porous). Even then that's a heck of a weight reduction.

 

Well, I am no expert, but there is something about the appearance of the OP that seems a bit off to me - the edges of the planchet appear rather squared off to me, with a kind of flatness to the fields that seems to be common in fakes. Also, the lettering seems too crisp...or just slightly off in style. Sorry I cannot be more definitive - this is an inexpert opinion.

As for the weight, I have a similar underweight Roman Republican denarius that puzzles me. This is one of my avatar coins with Marsyas issued by Censorinus (82 B.C.) - I thought it looked fine in the original photos, but it weighs only 2.97 grams (the seller noted this in the auction).

It does not appear to be crystalized, and the wear isn't really enough to account for the low weight. I have others of the type, and the overall dimensions match - it is just underweight. I posted it on CT a while back and the reply was, as I recall, overwhelmingly "fake" based on the weight.

But I am not entirely convinced. I have found other light-weight examples of this (I started a file on them) - some look fake to me. Others look possibly legit. Except for the weight, I can't really find anything else "off" about it. (But let me quickly add, again, that I am no expert).




Roman Republic Denarius
Lucius Marcius Censorinus
(82 B.C.)
Laureate head of Apollo rt. / L CENSOR Satyr Marsyas, bearded, nude and drunk holding wineskin before column (Minerva?).
Crawford 363/1d; Marcia 24; Sydenham 737
(2.97 g. / 18 mm) (Spain)

 

There's a known struck fake in the FORVM fake reports that is a die match. Yours actually makes me think pressed and not struck but at any rate I do believe it is modern

Link(requires login)

 

Pressed vs. Struck might explain the sort of flat appearance? I don't know a lot about this sort of thing, but that sounds like a reasonable explanation.

 

When I saw the photos of this coin, the first thought was that it didn’t look like the silver alloy that I see on the denarus coins that I have. I am still a novice when comes to ancient coins, but the color does not look right to me. The low weight makes the problem appear to be worse.

 

I took the picture under an incandescent light which gave it golden appearance. To compensate for that I used a filter in publishing the photo which may have given it the appearance you mention. Also when looking at the mentioned die match, there is a planchet defect or post minting gouge on the upper cheek below the eye on the obverse on my. I will try to take better images tomorrow when I have daylight to work with. Thanks for your input.

 

I noticed the fake coin there on Forum Ancient Coins does not have its weight listed. Is there anyway to see if it is also light by six or seven grams?

 

I cannot condemn the Op coin, but I am suspicious. The reverse appears in the image to be completely flat. Here is my worn example for comparison:

MAN ACILIUS GLABRIO ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS ACILIA
AR Denarius
OBVERSE: SALVTIS, head of Salus right
REVERSE: MN ACILIVS III VIR VALETV, Salus standing left holding serpent
Rome 49 BC
3.37g, 20mm
Cr442/1a, Acilia 8

 

I posted some better pictures. Could you please take a another look.

 

I posted better pictures below. As I look at the edges I think this may be a plated fourees as there seem to be separations with a copper core beneath.

 

I posted some better images below.

 

better pix posted this morning. Take a look at the edges. Plated fourre?

 

Not a fouree. a fouree is an ancient coin that is plated. Your coin appears to be a modern forgery.

 

The second image looks much better. I'm still not ready to condemn. I trust many of the posters on this forum to see fakes from images, but I am not one. The weight is my biggest concern, and if there is a match on one of the fake databases, then the chances are it's also a fake. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it is genuine.

 

As Bing notes, the fact red_spork found a die match to a known forgery (see above) makes it pretty much a forgery. There is always the hope that yours is the original "seed" coin for the fakes, but that is a pretty slender hope.

As for it being a fourree, I have my doubts. It is very hard, for me anyway, to spot a fourree from the edge declivities and cracks - even on a solid silver coin, these areas tend to stay dark even after a harsh cleaning, giving the impression of a base core.

It is an interesting issue - struck by a Pompey supporter, some speculate this was the bulk of the type Caesar took from the Roman treasury during his fight with Pompey. Here is an earlier post started by Sulla80: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/to-your-health-and-the-health-of-the-republic.328251/#post-3257044

I have a worn example - more worn than Bing's and mine even has banker's marks. It weighs 3.56 grams, which is about right for this, I think. My photos are poor and do not show the somewhat concave/convex aspects to it - the OP looks "flat" as I noted before - which I am guessing indicates pressed (modern) vs. a struck (ancient) coin. Somebody with more knowledge can perhaps provide more information on "pressed" coins?

 

I looked at the fake database and the one shown does not look to me to be an exact match. Thanks for keeping your fingers crossed. If it is a plated coin the weight would be about right.

 

Thanks for that informative reply and the link. I am not familiar with the process of "pressing". Can you tell me how that works and the resultant appearance so that I can be more likely to spot it on other coins?

 

That's my problem - I don't really understand the "pressing" process. I was hoping somebody else would chime in.

Taking a wild guess, I would say pressing involves machinery that applies an even pressure over the entire planchet, giving the coin an overall flat, even look that is not usually found in ancients (so that it looks more like a modern Jefferson nickel). If you pressed a coin without a collar, you would get the uneven edge with small "splits" that would give the appearance of an ancient coin - but the overall flat appearance would give it away.

A struck coin involves a hammer and an anvil and a big muscular arm. The resulting coin tends to be more irregular. In my Censorinus underweight example above, the fact my coin is not flat is one of the reasons I suspect it might be genuine, or at least an ancient fake - the flan is thicker on one end than the other as well. It could be a modern struck fake - modern counterfeiters do strike coins sometimes. Or it could be cast, but then there tends to be an edge seam...

But I am just guessing. I hope somebody wiser to the ways of making coins will weigh in.

 

For me, there's too many small similarities to the posted known forgery to believe this is real. The die break on the reverse coming from her nose and the little extra notch below on her neck on obverse, but those could be chalked up to simply a double die match with the mother coin. But the random bumps throughout the fields (mostly on reverse), the crack on the right by the V on reverse, appear to be similar between the two.

But like Bing, I don't know the coin well enough or have enough experience to say 100% (but I'm about confident at a 80-90% level).