Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by joecoincollect, Aug 26, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
i don’t see one, not sure i follow
you’re right, looks hundreds of years old, not thousands. Ill take it to a coin show to see what some say. I’m thinking i’ll sell for 200 plus, but that’s a long shot so I don’t mind owning since i paid under one hundred. My impression thus far is 1) it was die struck by a talented engraver but the talent of the artist is in question (not to me though); or 2) was cast but seam smoothed down then over a few centuries toned over so it appears to look like genuine Roman examples impressed on similar planchets/discs(?).
i can see a line in the center of the edge...lQQks to me anyway...may have been filed over..idk....it would be kool ifn it was legit...and certain paduans are very collectible too..
I'm in awe of well educated true numismatists who can distinguish between authentic and false, yet I'm still in awe of false. Hey it's a hard world out there; perhaps I should begin a collection of fascinating falsehoods?
I don't want bottom line to be burnt, but a true auction of false radically beautiful specimens might just be in order.
Certainly not cast. If it was the Hadrian portrait would be accurate. And this is horrible.
Edit- aha, I see that's been brought up.
That would be my best (admittedly-uninformed) guess.
I could buy into that theory, too.
Definitely not ancient, but old. Might have some collectible value in that right.
..yeah...my opinion is just one of the masses
I don't know what the forger based his Hadrian side on.
some better pics
Also, I like @GregH 's oxymoron:
"I suspect they're genuine 19th century antique replicas."
Separate names with a comma.