Hi Everyone, Came across this nice Trajan Denarius today and really want to snag it up, but as a still very new collector I wanted to do some CT due-diligence first The description includes "a bit bright" which makes me think perhaps this coin was polished at one time but just can't be definitively proven. I'm not a fan of polishing/smoothing/tooling so curious if there are any red flags with this coin in the polishing department? Thanks in advance!
'A bit bright' is a rather nice way of putting it. Some of us like coins that shine like the sun. Some like tone. Both situations can be either natural or artificially induced. I prefer toned coins but own many that are a bit bright from recent cleaning and some from outright polishing. I also have some with tone that got that way artificially. I get picky when buying coins for my 'general' collection and buy just about anything when it is for my specialty interests and the coin is something I am not likely to see again for a while. With the disclaimer that I have not referenced the fake lists and have no idea whether this coin is from a trusted source or a flea market, I see this as a reasonable option of someone who wants a Trajan of no special interest in gleaming silver. I do not specialize in Trajan and have enough Trajan denarii to last my lifetime without buying another even though this is an early issue while Trajan was referencing Nerva in the legend and does not show scratches at this magnification. Under a microscope you might see polishing marks or not. Those who like bright coins might be better off not buying a microscope. I do not have the exact type but below is my example from this early group with a different reverse. Mine has more wear, is not bright (I like) and has a bit more Nerva style in the portrait (I like). IMHO the question falls to whether you trust the seller and whether you will be offended by the brightness for years to come. Of course there is the question of price versus the degree that brightness offends. Will this be your only Trajan? How do you really feel about it? Your asking the question suggests this may not be the coin for you but I suspect most people would love it assuming it passes the fake list and source trust tests.
The line over the legends reverse left bothers me since things like that can come from copy dies made from an off center original. That is why I would check the fake reports before considering the coin BUT we still fall back on the question as to whether you want the coin even if it is genuine.
The coin is quite hairlined. Weight is important. Is the seller experienced in the fields of ancient coins and Roman coins specifically? Personally I wouldn't buy this coin, unless it is a rarity or at least very scarce, and is priced at a very reasonable level. Also, the seller must offer a return period. If this is an eBay purchase, there is the Buyer Protection Plan that they offer, even if the seller won't accept returns. But, you really want to avoid the time and hassle of returning the coin, especially if the seller is overseas. Just remember - there are always other fish in the sea.
Thats a fake. I can just tell. It was casted. This one was casted. Similar look to it. This one's different but has the same look. I found an archived fake here: http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/examples/faketrajan01.htm If the edge is smoothed it is fake, and if there is a line across anywhere on the rim it is fake. DO NOT BUY THIS COIN https://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/fake.html
Hi Doug, Thanks for the super informative reply! Had your words not already convinced me on my decision, seeing your version of this coin most certainly did. You have quite an exceptional version! I believe my desire for an EF Trajan denarius almost blinded me into buying something I would have regretted very shortly thereafter. I'm trying to move very slow and deliberately in amassing my collection and your shared knowledge on this topic has helped me avoid a mistake in that endeavor! Regarding the portrait - I find that very interesting. I have seen a number of early Trajan coins where his face looks, pardon my French, quite ugly compared to later issues. I had no idea it was due to a transition from the Nerva portraits into ones that look more like Trajan. I now want to collect more early Trajan coins just for that fact!
Well this is quite alarming! I will reply to all questions I've seen on this post- The coin is from Civitas Galleries. 19mm, 3.40g. Listed for $150.00. I was going through old CT posts and had seen Civitas well recommended so I thought I'd be safe to purchase without much personal numismatic knowledge of my own! Lucky me I decided to vet this coin first! Thank you for the information!!
I find no reason to believe the coin isn't genuine. I think it is likely recently cleaned. It's undoubtedly difficult to photograph and probably looks better in hand. Whether it's worth $150 is up to you to decide.
The one thing that makes me curious is the legend being obscured by Trajan's luxurious locks(specifically the bottom of the 'T' and 'R'). While a laurel wreath may at times protrude and break up a legend and the hair sometimes abuts to it, my OCD brain is used to seeing a clear definition between the line of the emperor's hair and the lettering at the top of a Trajan denarius. It could merely be the artist's doing. Simply an observation that makes me take pause. The style of the legend on the obverse makes my Spidey-sense tingle. It looks more R.R. or Greek than RIC.
I can't say whether or not the coin is legitimate, but if it is, then you have to realize that the coin almost 2,000 years old. Unlike US or world coins, any ancient coin is going to show evidence of cleaning. Virtually all of them have lain buried in the ground for centuries before they were discovered and dug up. Cleaning does not condemn an ancient coin. The OP coin looks like it has been dipped.
I was thinking about this comment of yours, and wondering if it's even necessary to allow for any exceptions. Wouldn't it be accurate, so far as we know, simply to say "all of them"? Do we know of any ancient coins that were never buried (purposely or otherwise), and have an unbroken history of being above-ground since ancient times? I've certainly never heard of any such coins -- no 60-generation family heirlooms! -- and doubt there are any. Unless there's a jar of Roman coins somewhere in the sub-basement of the Vatican that's been sitting there for 1600 years, right next to the menorah from the second Temple!
I was thinking about this also and came to the conclusion that for myself, I think it's about keeping up as much as possible the "illusion" of the coin. If a coin is far to cleaned, it no longer "feels" ancient. A nicely toned coin however looks like what one might expect an ancient coin to look like.
I think it's possible that some coins have never been buried. Your Vatican example is one possibility. There may also be some 5th century gold coins that were just shipped to whichever particular leader was being bribed not to invade the Empire and sat in a storehouse until they were eventually dispersed to different noble families and became heirlooms. I suppose any coin that was part of a royal treasury could have gone directly from the treasury into a collection. So I think it's more . . . well, I'll say accurate, others may say chicken-hearted, to sneak the qualifier "virtually" in there, especially if you're writing an article about ancient coins and getting paid by the word.
