My first impression is that they look like modern cast reproductions. Detail is soft. There are some tiny bubbles and voids and the types are known to be popular with fakers. Did you buy them from some reputable supplier?
Well eh wouldn't have been reputable if these had been fakes. Besides, how much are the fakes worth these days anyway?
The nero kinda looks like a cast of this copy. Nero - Slavey Replica Silver denarius of Nero, Slavey replica. Obverse: Laureate head R. IMP NERO CAESAR AVG P P Reverse: Jupiter seated L, tall sceptre in L hand behind, thunderbolt in R hand in front. IVPPITER CVSTOS Edge is stamped SL COPY. I don't think the edge stamping has been reported here before. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/index.php
I was distressed that no one else posted either agreement or disagreement with my opinion on these coins. Any coin not having a face value or melt value is worth exactly what someone will pay. To me, these are not particularly pretty or interesting so their value would be as exhibits in a 'Black Museum'. I'd say that, to me, would be no more than a dollar. Some may consider the items worthy of being made into jewelry in which case the value would be less than the mount. I fear that the greatest value of such items would be to someone whose intent would be to resell them as genuine to someone that would know no better but could afford to pay a hefty price. Replica coins sell for $5 to $50 depending on circumstances and pedigree of the fake (products of well known and skillful fakers like Becker can become collectables in their own rite). These strike me as toward the low end of that range. Perhaps you will have better luck with others responding to that question than you did originally.
I think Randy is correct which means these are not real fakes but they are fake fakes. Slavey is a respected copyist who at least makes good looking, if not deceptive, copies. Perhaps the examples here were home made using museum gift shop copies as the original. Value? Approaching zero?
I agree that both these have a cast look to them. Alternatively the lack of definition, and what seem to be heavy deposits could be the results of ground burial. However, if one compares the OP coins to this denarius, which is a ground find, one can see that the definition and overall look of both the OP coins is still too coarse, typical of cast copies. They seem to be cast copies, unfortunately.
I initially thought these looked like casts. But for a second, I considered perhaps that the specimens were ground finds (with bubbles and voids notwithstanding), and put into a tumbler. But even if that were the case, the lowest aspects of the devices, which would not have been affected by tumbling, still look mushy like a cast. Therefore, I must surmise that they are indeed casts; very poor casts indeed.
