Odd Augustus Denarius

FAKE?

Try





If fingerprints require 10 points (of reference) to be accepted in court, then these photos have more than 10 points to claim that they are the same photograph.

@ DavidUK:- That is why there is a question mark.

We do not know where caesar77 got his photo from. Because the measurement and the weight are the same and I am happy to say (and I do) that the photo is the same, I can only assume that he knows where to find it even though he says that he does not. Does caesar77 have the coin as well? If so I would suspect that his coin is a 'repro' of the R.N. coin, or he is a very lucky man.
We do not know.
Perhaps caesar77 could explain what he is looking for with his post? He said that he couldn't find it anywhere. I just pointed out where to look, but it would appear that he might already have known that.

A response back would have been good manners given the amount of effort expended on that thread trying to give translation. A thanks was in order I feel.

I guess there is little point posting here unless the OP cares to clarify or give further information.

Well the description does describe it as "unpublished in the standard references" so it would be hardly surprising not to find this in the books, or wildwinds, or anywhere.

I have dealt with Roma Numismatics before and they are knowledgeable and respected dealers - I would see no reason to doubt them, either on the authenticity of the coin or on them expending effort to identify it if it is a known type.

In addition, the discussion on FAC has revealed that there are die matches for both obverse and reverse from known fakes, so I am wondering who actually has the coin now?

If in doubt stay away from it.

As noted in the RN description, the obverse type for this coin is attested in Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (BMC) but only for gold. It is illustrated for two coins on plate 5 (19,20) and once on plate 6 (1), but never for this reverse.

The reverse type is illustrated in Robert Carson's Coins of the Roman Empire (pl 1, #3) also for gold, but with a different obverse. The Carson illustration appears to be of the same coin as the BMC reference given for BMC 1, 655, for a coin of the 7th consulship, illustrated as plate 15, #19. A denarius with a similar type of reverse but with "AEGVPTO" instead of "AEGVPT" is illustrated in Sutherland's Roman Coins (#220,221) and attributed to the 6th consulship as BMC 650. Two other denarii with the AEGVPTO reverse are listed and illustrated in the BMC catalog.

So far all the examples mentioned are in the British Museum. From this small group it would appear that the obverse for this coin, as well as the AEGVPT reverse are only attested for gold, but not together on the same coin. The AEGVPTO reverse is only attested for silver, and an example appears in the Seaby Roman Silver Coins catalog vol 1 as #4 under Augustus (also as COS VI but not one of the coins illustrated in BMC).

The available evidence from this brief search suggests that this coin alone crosses over from gold to silver for the obverse and reverse types, and it alone combines them on a single coin. Since the AEGVPTO reverse is not exceptionally rare for a denarius, and is the only form of this type attested for silver, I would require corroboration of the use of either of these types (obv and rev) on another piece in silver before I would credit this coin.

too bad. I read the thread on forumancientcoins. most of the time the experts there are right.