Mules

"Mule" is a generic numismatic term for a coin made from two dies that were not intended to be used together. As the CCF glossary states, a famous modern example in US coinage are mules made using a quarter dollar obverse and a Sacagawea dollar reverse.

In ancient coinage, the definition of a mule is a little less clear, since it isn't always obvious which die combinations are "accidental" and which are "deliberate". But a "mule" could be indicated by, for example, the obverse showing a portrait of a junior member of the Imperial family while the reverse has some of the titles of the senior emperor intended for one of the senior emperor's coins. Or a "death commemorative" obverse paired with a reverse that implies the emperor is still very much alive. Or a reverse typically found on "female" coins, paired with a male emperor on the obverse.

I should point out that a "mule" is also a possible sign that a coin is a counterfeit - more likely an ancient counterfeit, or even a barbarous imitation, than a modern forgery - since counterfeiters might be less likely to care about getting the die pairing exactly right. But genuine ancient mules are certainly possible.

Another excellent example of an ancient mule; the VRBS ROMA obverse is supposed to always have the she-wolf reverse; the Victory-on-prow reverse is supposed to go with the CONSTANTINOPOLIS obverse.

In this case, it looks too crude to be an official mint issue; that plus it's "muleness" make me think it's a barbarous imitation. The wings, especially, look way too spiky. Compare with this one on Wildwinds.

I am back home and now I can show the coin in question. It is a Philip I Antoninianus with an obv legend reading: IMPMIVLPHILIPPVSAVG - Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. The rev legend reads: VIRTVTIAVGVSTI - Hercules standing right leaning on club set on rock. A muling of an obverse of Philip with a reverse of Gordian perhaps? Or is it a modern day fake with a mistake of the reverse?

Fisrtly I really like the 'barbarous mule' Doucet I'm sure thats a coin that would appeal to many collectors (Roma, Constantinople, Constantine and Barbarous collectors to name just four!) and would command a good price. I'd certainly like to own it!

Secondly, thats a good fake JW, no shame being taken in with that one, it would prob have fooled me too.

It reminds me of a thread we had in January where I said I was uncomfortable with the amount of high quality Gordian coins on ebay. As your Philip is 'muled' with Gordian coins perhaps they are from the same fakers.

https://goccf.com/t/79808

Its worrying when the fakes are this good and of the 'cheaper' later Emperors. The GIII coins I was referring to in the above thread were all good enough to fool 90% of collectors on their own but when taken as a whole the situation seemed a bit fishy. I never thought 'coin population' would be a deciding factor in me keeping away from a whole area of coins, sad really. Its lucky we have the fake resources at FAC and Forgery Network etc and we are also lucky experts continue to update them in an attempt to clean up the hobby, to them.

I'm sorry you have another fake JW. It all seems to have been bad news in the ancients forum for a while . Lets have some good news for a bit to balance it out, anyone got any good news?