Tiberius Bronze As (Pontif Maxim), "R3" in RIC: Q. re Authenticity

We have almost the same thread going in two places.

At the end of day I know we have to assume there's some work if we want to own these types at realistic prices. But you should also be happy with what you buy. Hope it works out.

RIC 35 today at Naville #67 looks an awful like your coin.

Not as cleaned, but the same type.

RIC Wildwinds (it's actually the home pic for Tiberius):

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ultimately, this is what is most important. If one doesn't feel 'good' about a coin, then it's best to skip it.

The potential for lingering discomfort could continue to haunt one and never allow one to be able to fully enjoy a coin.

These (Imperial)Tiberius' bronzes can be tough get. Despite his long reign, there were only a few different types made, and it seems very difficult to find one in really nice shape.

 

I suppose it is better not to own a coin you don't trust than to own it with a footnote you can not forget. I would not have doubted it from the photo but that is why I don't like buying coins I have not seen. Good or bad, I hope he agrees to the cancellation.

 

Thanks. The only difference between RIC 33 and RIC 35 is that the obverse legend on the latter says "AVGVSTVS" rather than "AVGVST."

At this point, I'm wavering, and not sure what I want to do. If the dealer is willing to respect my decision on whether to cancel the purchase, I may ask him to give me 24 hours to decide.

 

The coin looks OK to me. Here's my left-facer for comparison:

 

In fact, given how much of the obverse legend on my example is off the flan, I'm not sure it's even possible to tell whether it's an RIC 33 or an RIC 35, i.e., whether the legend says AVGVSTVS or AVGVST. RIC classifies RIC 35 as "R2," as opposed to RIC 33's supposed "R3." I was able to find five examples on ACSearch, the same number as for RIC 33. So it wouldn't make much difference, really.

 

Looks authentic to me as well.

 

I have no experience with bronzes, but:

The style and weight of this coin is correct. So, if it's a fake it's either a cast or a transfer die fake.

The coin appears to have sharp details in the protected, recessed areas. Such as in the outline of the reverse seated figure. There is wear on the high points of the seated figure, but that's what you'd expect for circulation wear. I don't think it has a soapy appearance, overall. Also there are irregularly sized and shaped pits on the obverse, they look extremely like what you'd get due to corrosion. They're sometimes seen on silver coins.

Considering the sharp details in the recessed areas and the corrosion pits, I don't think it's a cast fake.

Transfer die fake is unlikely due to the corrosion pits present, unless it's a very old fake. To prove that, you'd need to find an identical twin somewhere.

About smoothing and tooling, if Curtis thinks the coin hasn't been smoothed I think you can trust his opinion.

Overall I think it's a genuine coin. Not the sharpest example, but genuine. And as others have mentioned, RIC rarity is pretty unreliable to be honest.

You can try and request a refund of course, if you still have doubts.

 

Thank you.

 

Looks OK to me. In fact, I rather like it, warts and all. Signs of previous corrosion, cleaned but not "fixed".

 

Assuming that the edge shows no signs of casting, I'm leaning towards keeping it at this point -- warts and all! -- even if the dealer gives me the opportunity to cancel the purchase. I think it has a nice portrait, and that's what caught my eye in the first place, along with the reverse design similar to the Tribute Penny. One doesn't see that many Tiberius bronzes, as others have mentioned. It's actually in better condition than most other examples available at retail, and for the (relatively low) price I paid, I think it's a decent buy, what with authenticity concerns essentially resolved. And what with the suspicions raised by a low price being charged for a coin RIC classifies as extremely rare also set aside. (Especially since the coin could just as well be RIC 35 as RIC 33.)

 

The dealer offered me a refund, but I told him to go ahead and send out the coin. I'm happy with my decision -- but a little embarrassed about making such a fuss over apparently nothing! Thanks so much to all of you for your help and advice.

 

The first coin in this thread looks perfectly fine.

Barry Murphy

 

Thank you. I guess it's unanimous!

 

After the experts weighed in.

 

I think this is a fine coin with a great style portrait and I expect you will be pleased with it down the road.

It's natural to suspect something might be wrong with a coin if you land the coin at a price that seems a little too good to be true. When this happens to me (rarely but sometimes), I obsessively look for an explanation for the low retail or hammer price and the first things that I look for are signs that the coin may be inauthentic or altered. Nothing wrong with getting other opinions.

 

@DonnaML has posted: Jochen1's example is actually also RIC I Tiberius 33; the 31 must be a typo.

Thanks for the correction.
Jochen

 

The coin arrived yesterday (it took about 10 days to reach me from the UK). Here is my own photo, which I think looks a bit more like the coin in hand than the dealer's photo, and perhaps shows a bit more detail -- including all the corrosion pitting, especially if you click on the photo to zoom in! I sincerely hope that it doesn't make anyone change their mind about the coin's authenticity. I'm perfectly happy myself with the way the coin looks, and have no plans to perform cosmetic surgery by filling in the holes with spackle!



Regarding my curiosity about what the edge looks like, there's certainly no sign of a casting seam in this photo:



But what do people think this is (two photos of the same spot)?





The edge looks like that only in the one place, so I hope it's not a sign of anything suspicious.

 

Most likely a remnant of the fill channel from when the flan was cast. No reason for alarm, in my opinion.

 

Thank you!