| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 2,104 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
201 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
They both look official issues to me.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12477 Posts |
If it's any comfort coming from someone who knows next to nothing of these: I don't see anything that screams fake.  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
2752 Posts |
 With both... First coin could be Constantine II or Constantius II.. Second coin looks something like this.. Claudius II, AE Antoninianus, Cyzicus. DIVO CLAVDIO, radiate head right with one dot under head / CONSACRATIO, Flaming altar with horned roof. 4 panels on altar, dot in each panel. LaVenera Vol I 10924; Goebl 288a1.... Maybe you can flick through wildwinds and fine tune the mint? Edited by Palouche
01/08/2019 05:07 am
|
|
Valued Member
New Zealand
292 Posts |
Hi Everyone it's been a while. Anyway I think the first coin is Constans. 'Constans.P.F.AVG. The little Brother of Constantine II,Constantius II. He was little mean despot. Ivar From Vikings comes to mind thinking about Constans.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
I very much feel that they are not fake, but I do think that they may both be barbarous.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Belgium
1194 Posts |
First coin : Constans pre-reform : Constans P F Aug / Victoriae DD (dominorum) Augg ( augustorum) Q (que = and) Nn ( nostrorum ) : two Victories : legal coin
Second : I think barbarous : Claudius II Gothicus had this type of coin in barbarous , this is a well struck one . albert
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
201 Posts |
Awesome, thank you guys so much! I think I will agree that the first one is legal and the second one is likely barbarous. The big tell I think is the bulky letters, especially the R in CONSECRATIO (on the reverse). I'd love to hear more input though!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
It's always a tough call on Claudius II consecration issues. Reason being, the type was produced during the reigns of Quintillus and Aurelian, when we know that the mint at Rome was run by Felicissimus. Aurelian had him put to death for adulterating the coinage (even these are supposed to be 2% silver; he was reducing them to 1% or less, reducing the flan size, and stealing the silver for himself). Around the time of his death, the mint workers revolted, and finally stole a bunch of dies and fled the city, where they continued operations elsewhere. Unlike the Tetricus-style barbs, it probably isn't even possible to tell the difference between a coin made before and after the revolt.
Come to think of it, I only have one such issue that I am reasonably certain is an official "kosher" emission!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
201 Posts |
Awesome Finn, I had no idea the history of that!! When you say 2% silver, is that what happens when they do the silver-sud on the outside?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
In theory, the alloy was 98% copper and 2% silver, and the prepared planchets would have been soaked in an acid until the copper was eaten away and the final product looked silver. This worked well for coins produced under Gallienus, but silvered coins of Claudius II and Quintillus are quite rare. I'm not aware of any comprehensive studies that ran XRF on these coins, but I would not be surprised if many "official" issues of the time had no silver at all.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1120 Posts |
First one is Constans, I was fairly sure that the second was a Claudius II barbarous until Finn schooled me - Again.  Here is a Constans I just picked up a couple of days ago. As you can see the eyes are quite similar  |
|
Valued Member
United States
201 Posts |
Yes, those eyes are very similar! Okay, they just looked so cartoony to me that I thought maybe it was just a bad attempt at a forgery from the "barbarians" haha. Thanks so much!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
I agree that the first coin is genuine and the second likely "barbarous". At the following link, the database for the upcoming RIC Vol. V revision, you can compare the op coin with examples of the known official Divo Claudio issues with quadripartite altar. http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/search/adv...1&mod=result |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 2,104 |
|
Posted 01/08/2019 03:17 am
