Here is a bronze/copper one which was the devil to clean. I used a wooden spoon to chip the crud/corrosion off the surface. A metal pick would damage it but the wood actually worked great. B
Bone,can you guess which Roman Emperor issued this copper coin & if it has a mintmark? If the mintmark 'PL' is present,then it is a Roman British coin struck at the Londinium (London) Mint.Roman British coins belong in British Commonwealth collectors' collections.The 'PL' mintmark was used on Australian coins struck at London in 1951. Aidan.
Aidan, No, I'm afraid I can't make out the mint mark. This coin was in a group I purchased from a contact in Rhodes. I haven't been able to e-mail him in months, no responce's. Most of the other coins I received were minted at Antioch or other Prathian (sp) areas. B
wooden cocktail sticks / toothpicks come in pretty handy for cleaning crud off coins like these. ;-) Ian
Is it thick ? If so, as I seem to see greek letters on it, I would suggest an Alexandrian tetradrachm of Claudius Gothicus. Just a thought Cucumbor
Cucumbor,that was my guess too but after going to the Wildwinds thumbnail page for Gothicus,every coin of his shows him with that long spiky pointed crown.I think this might be an earlier emperor.Also,the Greek tetradrachms dont show the "pi" symbol on any of the examples.The reverse is probably Fortuna holding her cornucopia and patera. I'm thinking Hadrian or Antonius Pius,both of whom had coins minted with Greek letters,but still looking.
Ancient Roman coins with the Emperor's titles in Greek are called Greek Imperial coins.There is a separate catalogue for these coins. Aidan.
You're probably right in your assumption. Then the portrait would much more be Antoninus for me. Happy new year Cucumbor
It looks like Marcus Aurelius (or Antonius Pius) and it looks like a tetradrachm from Alexandria. However, I think that the the Alexandrian tets were still nominally (debased) silver even in 190 AD, so it might be a Greek Imperial. I'd need a better look at the coin. Still, it seems to have come out nice. You even consider doing this for a living? Have you done a lot of that cleaning with bones, etc?
For a living, hahahaha, No, it's just a hobby. I've been cleaning these for about a year. Strictly an amateur who collects and followed the directions of several sites recommendations. Sadly, I've messed up a few "good-ones" as well. I accidentally rubbed the silver off a "Silvered Antoninious" which was in acceptable shape before my "treatments". I've actually broken some of them after applying too much pressure while chipping off the crud with the wooden spoon handle. My best is the Michale IV 1034-1041. The process is strictly hit-or-miss. Bone
You did not ruin anything important. "Many scholars believe that they represent a formal policy of the Roman mint in which plated pieces comprised a portion of most issues. Michael Crawford, a noted English scholar, denies this position since no die-links between plated and solid-silver pieces have been found. Hence, he holds that all such pieces are counterfeits." http://home.cogeco.ca/~cmns/deceptions 7.htm In the words of Michael H. Crawford: "No one seriously doubts that a large proportion of the plated Roman coins which survive for study can be dismissed as private forgeries. But it is widely believed that some plated Roman coins should be regarded as official products of the mint. Neither evidence nor probability supports such belief." Michael Crawford's thesis was called "Plated Coin -- False Coin." ( Numismatic Chronicle ser. 7 vol. 8, 55–9 and pl. XIV.) It was on that basis that I re-examined the so-called "emergency issue" Owls, the plated tetradrachms of Athens and came to a similar (qualified) conclusion: they are (most likely, in most cases) fake fakes, not official issues.
