Roman Coin - Gordian III?

Possibly this

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/bigp...ian_I/i.html

but the ancient experts will correct me

and

A copy? Really?

It looks and feels very old. Faded lettering and it varies from 4mm - 6mm in thickness, where I guess it was struck? But then again I know very little about coins so I will bow to the experts on here.

My father found it approx 30-40 years ago while lifting floorboards in an old cottage that was being demolished. It appeared as though it had gone the gaps at some point and been their a while as it was amongst a lot of rubbish.

Is this what it should look like echizento

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s8470.html

Ah that's a shame! I guess a pretty bad copy then, as the colour is different, and mine seems thicker than the picture of the genuine? Anybody know anything about these copies? When were they made, where, why etc? Also mine seems to have faded lettering, the strike (or not as it may be) seems slightly off centre giving an overlap effect etc, was this done to make it look more realistic as if it were struck?

Thanks for the answers so far

It actually is a rather nice copy and does have some 'value' as a placeholder in a collection. If I found it in a local shop or on ebay I know I would spring $20 for it ..... maybe a bit more. It is not completely without redeeming value !

Things that stand out, for me:

- The colour. It is "supposed" to be brass and your piece is indeed brass, and ancient brass does turn black over time. But the black layer on genuine brass coins is rather thick; this layer on your coin is so thin it has worn away in patches. This is, however, what you would expect to find on a modern brass piece (or a genuine but overcleaned coin) that had a quick artificial ageing process applied to it.

- The "porous" appearance. This, too, can appear on genuine coins as a result of corrosion, but it is more commonly a sign of being a cast copy. Related to this is the general lack of detail, especially on the reverse where seated Roma's head has all but disappeared.

- The "cracks" visible running through the coin in places, most notably on the emperor's cheek and neck. Such cracks are almost always a sign of the coin being a cast fake that cooled too quickly in the mould.

- The "green fuzz" showing up in places. his, too, can appear on genuine ancient coins - and it is usually bad news when it appears, as it is a sign of "bronze disease", an infectious form of corrosion - but it also appears on modern replicas which have been artificially aged by chemical means.

As you can see, there's no one "Aha!" clue that definitively proves this is a fake - it's all the little clues, adding up.


People have been making fake ancient coins for hundreds of years, for all sorts of reasons. I suspect this one has come from the tourist areas of Greece, Turkey or Italy. It is illegal for tourists to buy and sell genuine ancient coins in these countries, but it is perfectly legal to sell fake ancient coins.

Note how the coin in the picture is rougher - flan mishapen, details dissapearing into the patina.

One thing which is pretty indicative of the old cast fake is the edge. Usually a seam is there - often they try and hide it though. Ig you could get a picture of the edge it would help.

Lots of fakes are very old - older ones are worth a bit on their own. Victorians loved historical stuff (especially egyptian) but without detectors coins were hard to come by. they would therefore produce these fakes.

And they were demolishing a 500 year old cottage?!? Why?!

If you are located in the UK an close to London, you can take it to the British Museum and have it checked out. If not you can send it off to David Sear and he will be able to certify if it's real or not. You will need to check his website to see how much it would cost you. You will need an expert in ancient coins to check it out. I wouldn't just take it to a local coin shop, most shop know very little if anything about ancients.