Commodus: Fake Or Not.

IMO this is a genuine example, very nice coin.

OK here are a couple of snapshots of the edges I took just now, so I apologise for the quality..

And sorry about the prejudicial nature of my opening statement. I really don't mean to guide anyone's opinion one way or the other (yet) but couldn't think of how to phrase it without raising suspicions about the coin..

It is funny you should mention 'pursuing it'. I have rarely parted with any coins in my collection. They all tell a tale of the evolution of my hobby. But I have been tempted to be rid of this one because it has driven me crazy with its uncertainty.

Now that three of you have given the same opinion, let me explain.
Btw. It is an opinion which I consider the most likely also. I think it is almost certainly genuine.

I have been on a bit of a journey with this coin. I picked it up from a local dealer, entirely mis-identified as a more common type, for a bit of a steal, soon after I first started collecting. For quite a while I assumed it was genuine, but didn't back then have the personal experience to have a strong opinion of my own. After a while I showed these images to three other people and one other who saw the coin itself. Between them all there was a great deal of experience in ancients and forgeries. The first one saw problems with the coin, thought it was 'too medallic', the details on the reverse too soft and thought that little knobble at the base of the bust's neck might be from casting. The second had similar concerns and wondered if it might be a cast of a Paduan original. The third, I am convinced I prejudiced his view by announcing it as a fake on the basis of the first two...he didn't really have a great deal more experience than I...but concurred as might be expected.

So for a long time I assumed it was not genuine and demoted it in my collection as a possible cast from a Paduan (btw, I have checked, there is no such Paduan Commodus of this type amongst the 125 known dies he used). However I have never been content with those opinions, despite their experience. As Medeival pointed out, it is so easy to prejudice people's views. I didn't feel any of them gave it truly serious consideration before announcing their opinions. None of them even asked for edge images. Over the years, as my own experience has grown and I have seen and held many more ancients, my doubts about its inauthenticity have grown. So eventually I actually was able to show it to a very experienced collector who could have it in hand...and he was sure it was genuine.

You can see that the edges look fine. The patina is definitely old. The style is 'good'. I am not concerned by the medallic quality which is not unusual and actually is quite appealing. That bubble on the neck is not convincingly of a cast and could well be OK. As you said Fvrivs Rvfvs, the features are soft but this is not entirely unusual either.

So what am I left with? Well I can't disregard those who doubted the coin. It is either a very attractive rarity with a nice medallic quality, or a very attractive old forgery. I now strongly lean towards it being genuine. It 'feels' right, in addition to many other convincing details. However the doubt surrounding it has niggled at me...I could never pass it on to anyone unless they knew that it came with some doubts...even though now that my own experience has grown and I feel able to hold an opinion of my own, I believe it is genuine. it has sentimental value to me whatever it is as one of my earliest acquisitions...

Thanks Echizento...I really appreciate you giving your view and taking some time to look into it. Same for the others here. If anyone else has further thoughts, or contrary ones, please feel free to say more...

Thanks for your extensive write-up. When I first looked at it (with that seed of doubt you created) the lower part of the obverse seemed to be a bit 'soft'. But reconsidering it might just as well be from strike or normal wear.
The pictures of the rim are not suspicious. With most forgeries I have encountered the rim had the most telling signs, that's why I asked for those. Methinks you can confidently keep it in your collection, while I guess your doubts will never fully go away - if it really should not be genuine it would be an excellent/masterly copy.
Have myself a few forgeries, picked them up within a lot of certified genuine ones in an auction by a respected numismatic company (knew it before I bid, but the good ones were worth it).

Since you are in the UK, how far from London?
Next time you are there, go to one of the very good dealers and ask a specialist how much money they would offer you for the coin. That way you might get a non-prejudiced opinion from someone who sees the coin as it is, rather than a picture.

Very interesting Sel

The obverse looks like a die match but the reverse doesn't..........hmmmmm

Obverses of the BM examples look to be different
to the CNG example, and the example that is the subject of this thread.

NB. to keep my comparisons between the CNG example and those on the BM site separate, I wrote the above before looking at Medieval's link. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but it is just a habit. Considering those examples too though I am slightly more inclined to think my coin just might be OK. Although they are a little more different, they show how close in structure the dies can be, whilst remaining different. They really demonstrate just how accurately the Romans were able to control the manufacture of their dies. Anyway...everybody's input is much appreciated. Many thanks, but I think I still need more help for any conclusion to be reached...

Fire away