Rare Caracalla Sestertius Liberalitas Platform Type RIC 309

Caracalla Sestertius RIC 509 LIBERALITAS AVGG VI ET V - RARITY: R3
Caracalla and Geta on platform with citizen being handed coins by another figure, who holds abacus and cornucopia - ca. 210 AD
Weight: 26.63 grams Size: 32.5 mm

Having handled by now thousands of ancient coins, I think I have a decent grasp on the difference between fake and genuine, at least with respect to imperial bronzes, which are difficult to phony. And yet for some prospective purchases, I still check out the excellent Forum database of fake coins, and it has helped me avoid a couple of purchases where there was doubt. I have found thatif there are doubts such that a coin has to be checked out on the Forum site, it usually although means its a phony.

And yet, I have been fooled and lost hundreds of dollars as a result - in one instance the coin was on Forum (a Severus Alexander sestertius), but in my overconfidence it wasn't checked out until it was too late, in another it was not on the site, but the late discovery of the remains of a sprue hole, among other things, clearly showed the coin to be an (excellent) cast fake. I was unable to return the coins in both instances and lost hundreds of dollars. Still, two losses is not so bad in 22 years.

In two other instances, each involving a sestertius, I ended up with coins for consignment that were returned because of doubts. The coins looked authentic - one an Antoninus Pius/Marcus Aurelius sestertius with an extra large portrait of Marcus, the other an Antoninus Pius sestertius with a forgotten reverse. Both coins appeared genuine but something about them was suspicious, and both were returned - something about each coin did not seem correct - and I could not justify putting up the coin.

What does the above have to do with the coin pictured at the top of this article? Not much. This coin was sold by a reputable dealer, Jesus Vico, SA, in 2018, and I purchased it from a reputable VCOINS dealer, after six long months of payments. When I first held the coin something about it gave me pause but after closely examining certain details - for example the "T" on the reverse, which is perfectly consistent with similar lettering on Caracalla's sestertius, the way the lines are in the moustache, lack of a sprue hole or evidence of casting bubbles, and much more, it is clearly genuine. Plus who would go to the enormous trouble of making an excellent copy of a coin like this where only one sale is possible when other types could be made with much less effort and much more profit? The excellence of the flan could be because it was struck as a Severan presentation piece - this is pure speculation but I have noticed that such pieces appear to be more carefully made than "regular" issue sestertiii during this period.

And most important, it was sold by two reputable dealers which really is the best guarantee of authenticity.

It would be great if there was a die match to this but I have found only one other example, from different dies. If anyone finds another example please let me know.

As for the coin itself, and its historical context, that will be addressed in another article where it will be paired with a different type.

Comments - especially experiences with fakes - would be appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That coins so thick I'm pretty sure it's the platform that they are sitting on!
Very cool addition

 

Such super-thick coin, with great portrait. Nice addition!

 

The beard on Caracalla looks strange to me. Could it have been tooled?
Look at the depression on the cheek, just above the beard. I think that is where the tooling started. That groove would have to be a raised ridge on the die, which doesn't make sense....to me.

 

Banti (Nr. 20) lists one specimen, from the Gnecchi collection:

The coin from Paris described by Cohen (Nr.132) and listed as RIC 509 is without SC.

 

A match - finally. My guess is that Geta was killed not long after this was struck
and anyone with the coin quickly got rid of it. It was probably a capital offense to
own this - the mint might have had a “stop the presses!” moment.

Or not - just speculation.

Kind of hard to miss the “SC”

 

Nice coin @Blake Davis

 

Other specimens from the same dies in my collection of plaster casts:

Rome (Gnecchi) as illustrated above from Banti
Paris (has S C!)
Copenhagen
Venice
Oxford
Vienna
My coll., formerly in Vienna from the Tiepolo Coll., disposed of because they acquired a better one from the same dies.

 

RIC 509!!!!! unbelievably bad mistake! I really need to do a better job of proof reading these - is there any way to correct this, since my edit function no longer works

 

Blake,

What mistake do you think you made?

Your coin indeed seems to be RIC 509, but with corrections of two mistakes that Cohen 132 made. Having described the aureus and denarius of this type, he erroneously wrote "Same reverse" when describing the Paris sestertius, forgetting to mention that the sestertius adds S C in reverse exergue and expands LIB in the rev. legend to LIBERALITAS.

But now I notice your mistake: RIC 309 not 509 in the title.

 

@Blake Davis, I don't know if you still need to correct your post but for future reference, a moderator can temporarily restore your ability to edit if you ask one of them.

Another thing to consider is this: "Supporters" have the ability to edit their posts for a longer time. I don't know how long, but for instance I posted something Wednesday and the Edit button is still there. Also, the annoying ads are hidden for supporters. I think you can post more pictures in a thread and there may be other perks as well.

To become a Supporter, hover over your user name at the top right of the page (if you're on a regular computer/laptop) and select "Account Upgrades" .

 

Thanks but Cohen at least have the excuse of making a magnus opus (hope I used that correctly)! He could be forgiven if he made a few errors!

 

Interesting - I have spent some time comparing the beard to others from the same time, and it appears to be consistent, but MI will take a closer look - it could just be the results of cleaning. One interesting aspect of these that I discovered - not much of a discovery - is that some of the portraits of Caracalla with the "BRIT" reverse has the famous Caracalla "mean" face with knitted brow and the overall fierce expression that Dio claimed Caracalla was proud to assume, as if he was in a rage.
Maybe I will do an article comparing the two types and find out if there is a way to show that the fierce examples were struck after the death of Caracalla.

By the way, one of the terrific aspects of Doug Smith's articles on ancient coins is how many include issues for further research. I have never been able to analyze coins in those terms and it is one of many features of the articles that brings me back to them again and again.

 

Again, look especially at the groove separating the cheek and the first row of beard “nubs.”
Consider why a ridge to form the groove would be on the die surface which struck it.
The groove lowered the coin surface so as to form the first row of “nubs” and all succeeding rows. The “nub” tops are now at the same level as the cheek, not above it as one might expect.
I do not see that “groove” on the example of the type posted by others.
IMHO!

 

If the beard is tooled, I don't think it's egregious by any means. It doesn't look radically different from the Banti specimen. But to PeteB's comment about the ridge on the cheek being above the beardline, can you post some pics from different angles? Sometimes the lighting can trick your eyes.

 

No. I am referring to the groove on the cheek, just above the first “nubs” of the beard line. The ridge to form it would have had to be on the die face..an improbable scenario. Thus, the groove would have to be achieved to enhance all, or many of the “nubs,” especially at the cheek line.
Visualize a prior condition where the “nubs” are worn almost completely flat, merging with the cheek. How would a tooler enhance them?
He would have to cut a groove above and around the “nubs.”

 

Ah ok, I see your point. I'd still like to see the onbverse from a few different angles.

 

That would be helpful.
I hope I am wrong, but……we’ll see.

 

Somehow I never saw this post. This gives me the information I was looking for about the coin. Oddly enough there is a very worn/rough example on eBay now. Had I not already had this one I would have bought it- eBay still can be a great place to find coins.

the Elagabalus Liberalitas I put up is another coin for which I am searching for more information. Blake

 

I still have to respond to this. There is a fake of this type on the Forum site - I have compared the two but it does not look the same. Would love a second opinion. I’ll do photos from a different angle.