Help with information about Miliarense Constantin

[traveler]

10 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It seems to be cast (some bubbles, apparent edge seam), but I didn't' comment earlier since I'm not 100% sure. I certainly wouldn't buy it.

The type is RIC 131, not RIC 58 (different mintmark - CONSIA vs dot CONSIA dot).

It's not an obverse match to that coin - this one has unusual 3-ended wreath ties, vs more common 2-ended on that one.

 

Thanks for the attribution correction Heliodromus. I wasn't intending to comment on this coin, but I really don't see the signs which convinced other posters that this coin is fake.

Roundness of the flan: Coins of this period are very round to begin with. 
Weight: 3.94g is acceptable for a light miliarense.
Style: The engraving of the legend, and the general style of the portrait/reverse all seem more or less acceptable for the period. To me, if this coin is a fake it will likely be a cast or transfer die fake.
Casting bubbles: It's true there are what appear to be casting bubbles, especially in the reverse field. But there are also really typical looking corrosion marks on the obverse bust, and what looks like clumsy (sorry) cleaning scratch marks on the top of the obverse bust.

Since this is a rare type, it would make sense if someone were to go to the trouble of casting a genuine coin, then adding cleaning scratches and such. Corrosion on the obverse could be faked too I guess. But on balance I am not comfortable with condemning it so quickly.  

[Ryro]

1 hour ago, traveler said:

Thanks for the attribution correction Heliodromus. I wasn't intending to comment on this coin, but I really don't see the signs which convinced other posters that this coin is fake.

Roundness of the flan: Coins of this period are very round to begin with. 
Weight: 3.94g is acceptable for a light miliarense.
Style: The engraving of the legend, and the general style of the portrait/reverse all seem more or less acceptable for the period. To me, if this coin is a fake it will likely be a cast or transfer die fake.
Casting bubbles: It's true there are what appear to be casting bubbles, especially in the reverse field. But there are also really typical looking corrosion marks on the obverse bust, and what looks like clumsy (sorry) cleaning scratch marks on the top of the obverse bust.

Since this is a rare type, it would make sense if someone were to go to the trouble of casting a genuine coin, then adding cleaning scratches and such. Corrosion on the obverse could be faked too I guess. But on balance I am not comfortable with condemning it so quickly.  

Welcome to NF. Usually folks make their first post posting coins of theirs or introducing themselves. But you are really passionate about this other brand new posters suspicious coin. 

But I do have to correct you. This isn't a "rare type", as you stated. It's a type that doesn't exist. 

Anyways, I hope you'll post coins of you're own and let us know about you in some other threads. 

[traveler]

Hello Ryro,

Thanks for the welcome. I do realise a new person posting in defence of another new person is bound to raise eyebrows. Which is why I wasn't intending to reply in the first place. 

About the type not existing... I take it you mean that the OP's coin is fake. I'm willing to be corrected there. However, having said that, RIC 131 as a type does exist. Here's another example sold by Harlan J. Berk: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11431254

I've attached an image from my tray of late Romans, to show that I'm a collector as well.

[Heliodromus]

59 minutes ago, Ryro said:

This isn't a "rare type", as you stated. It's a type that doesn't exist. 

Huh ? Are you saying RIC 131 doesn't exist, or something else ?

 

[Ryro]

13 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

Huh ? Are you saying RIC 131 doesn't exist, or something else ?

 

That it is fake. 

[traveler]

Anyway, Joe over at Forvm has replied. From his reply I think he is non-committal, or at the very least he doesn't think it's a glaring fake.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=133022.0

[Glebe]

37 minutes ago, Ryro said:

That it is fake. 

Produced how, exactly?

Ross G.

[Victor_Clark]

 

a friendly reminder to everyone --

 

 

 

[pavlo]

9 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

These photos best convey the appearance of the coin

[John Conduitt]

6 hours ago, traveler said:

Anyway, Joe over at Forvm has replied. From his reply I think he is non-committal, or at the very least he doesn't think it's a glaring fake.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=133022.0

He says he has no experience with miliarensia. I wouldn't read into that he doesn't think it's a glaring fake.
 

9 hours ago, traveler said:

Roundness of the flan: Coins of this period are very round to begin with. 

What brings you to this conclusion?

[pavlo]

7 hours ago, Ryro said:

Що це підробка. 

Hello again, I did not intend to sell this coin to anyone or anything like that, I was just interested in its history... I have been searching with a metal detector for more than 10 years, I do not clean coins, I only wash them Therefore, those scratches are not from my washing, I cannot agree with the statement that the Romans did not go there, because over the years I have found there already about 150 denarii and antonians, as well as objects of construction. Tourists It has never been there.. and I have not met any searchers there except me over the years... I can give a macro photo of any part of the coin. I apologize again. I am also adding a link to the video of how I found the coin

https://youtube.com/shorts/oQ0vs5wIlsU?si=DMuAUOt4VNPu1hai

[traveler]

46 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

He says he has no experience with miliarensia. I wouldn't read into that he doesn't think it's a glaring fake.
 

What brings you to this conclusion?

About round flans. What I was trying to say, is that circular flans are actually pretty common for late Roman coins. They're not like denarii, which can have markedly oval flans.

I speak from my own experience with late Romans solidi in my collection. If you look at the image below again, all of them have almost the entire beaded border on flan. That is an indicator of how circular the flans are. 

Of course miliarensia are not the same as solidi. Unfortunately I only have one miliarense.. they are expensive. But the one I have is pretty circular too.
On acsearch.info I see many miliarensia with round flans as well, although there are exceptions of course. But personally, I would not take the relative roundness of the OP coin as a red flag.

[John Conduitt]

28 minutes ago, traveler said:

About round flans. What I was trying to say, is that circular flans are actually pretty common for late Roman coins. They're not like denarii, which can have markedly oval flans.

I speak from my own experience with late Romans solidi in my collection. If you look at the image below again, all of them have almost the entire beaded border on flan. That is an indicator of how circular the flans are. 

Of course miliarensia are not the same as solidi. Unfortunately I only have one miliarense.. they are expensive. But the one I have is pretty circular too.
On acsearch.info I see many miliarensia with round flans as well, although there are exceptions of course. But personally, I would not take the relative roundness of the OP coin as a red flag.

Ok yes they are not wildly out of shape, but your Gratian is a little misshapen here and there, which is normal. The OP coin has a rim all the way round, uniform thickness and the edge even looks machined. These coins are usually very thin and crack easily. Your coin is a good example to compare. They are not the same. I don't think you could remove the toning on yours with water and a plastic brush.

Edited January 9 by John Conduitt

[pavlo]

27 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Гаразд, так, вони не дуже втратили форму, але ваш Gratian тут і там дещо деформований, і це нормально. Монета OP має обідок по всій довжині, однакову товщину, а край навіть виглядає обробленим. Ці монети зазвичай дуже тонкі й легко тріскаються. Ваша монета є гарним прикладом для порівняння. Вони не однакові. Я не думаю, що ви можете видалити тонування на своїй воді та пластиковій щітці.

I tried to wash the coin so that the experts could have a good look 

[Heliodromus]

10 hours ago, pavlo said:

I tried to wash the coin so that the experts could have a good look 

The video you have of this coin being "found" shows it in pretty much the same condition.

It seems either the cleaning scratches on the coin come from when it was *really* found, or they are from the original coin this was cast from, or they have been added to a cast coin to make it look more legitimate.

The lack of pearl/beaded border on the coin is odd, as noted on FORVM, but that seems to equally apply to a cast. Perhaps the coin has a history as jewelry, but I've never seen one with edges deliberately filed for this purpose.

 

Edited January 9 by Heliodromus

[pavlo]

12 хвилин тому Геліодром сказав:

Відео, яке ви маєте, як цю монету "знайшли", показує її майже в самому стані.

Хоче, що подряпини від чищення на монеті з'явилися, коли її «справді* знайшли», або вони виходять з оригінальної монети, з якої її було відліто, або їх додали до літньої монети, щоб вона виглядала легітимніше.

Відсутність перламутрової/бісерної рамки на монеті є дивовижною, як виявлена на FORVM, але це, здається, рівною мірою застосування й літо. Можливо, монета має історію як ювелірна прикраса, але я ніколи не бачив монети зі спеціально підпиляними краями для цієї мети.

 

Я на 99% впевнений, що саме ця монета використовувалася лише як медальйон, а щодо оброблених країв - є монети з припаяною оправою... чи можна її ідентифікувати медальйон?

Edited January 9 by pavlo

[pavlo]

1 hour ago, Heliodromus said:

Відео, яке ви маєте, як цю монету "знайшли", показує її майже в тому самому стані.

Схоже, що подряпини від чищення на монеті з’явилися, коли її «справді* знайшли», або вони походять від оригінальної монети, з якої її було відлито, або їх додали до литої монети, щоб вона виглядала легітимніше.

Відсутність перламутрової/бісерної рамки на монеті є дивною, як зазначено на FORVM, але це, здається, рівною мірою стосується й лиття. Можливо, монета має історію як ювелірна прикраса, але я ніколи не бачив монети з спеціально підпиляними краями для цієї мети.

 

Here is an example of finds from that area 

[pavlo]

Here I am attaching a photo of the "seam" compared to other coins

[Prieure de Sion]

1 hour ago, AETHER said:

*(&^%#@ this, im moving to Europe 

... but not Germany - and not Italy 😄 

[AETHER]

10 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

.. but not Germany - and not Italy 😄 

Travel is short is Europe 🙂 I will manage

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, AETHER said:

*(&^%#@ this, im moving to Europe 

It's great. I found this in my back garden.

Edited January 9 by John Conduitt

[traveler]

12 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Ok yes they are not wildly out of shape, but your Gratian is a little misshapen here and there, which is normal. The OP coin has a rim all the way round, uniform thickness and the edge even looks machined. These coins are usually very thin and crack easily. Your coin is a good example to compare. They are not the same. I don't think you could remove the toning on yours with water and a plastic brush.

I agree, thanks. Those are good points.

Just by looking at the OP coin... I am still unsure about whether it's a fake or not. Having said that, the "find video", and the story being told by the OP are doubtful to me.

[pavlo]

6 hours ago, traveler said:

Я згоден, дякую. Це хороші моменти.

Просто подивившись на монету OP... Я все ще не впевнений, чи це підробка чи ні. Зважаючи на це, «знайти відео» та історія, яку розповідає OP, для мене сумнівні.

First they looked for a seam, then scratches, tourists threw it out, it was too round... for some reason, if a coin is not found in America or Britain, then it is immediately a fake.

[Heliodromus]

Well, I'm still unsure myself, so not "immediately a fake", but ...

1) There are issues with the coin itself

2) There are issues with your find story/video - that don't match the coin

The surfaces of the coin look odd, especially (to me) the surface roughness/pitting on the rims and Virtvs' leg, etc. The edges of the coin do have *some* hint of a seam, but otherwise show the same odd roughness as some of the rest of the coin - they don't look original/natural. The legend looks "soft" - edges of the letters blend into the surface. The beaded edge is gone - there is just a flat rim. If one looks carefully there are what could be casting bubbles present on the coin.

Your find video only shows the coin being picked out of a loose pile of dirt on the surface. There is no proof of the coin having actually been dug up. You show the coin being rubbed with your fingers and it appears silvery - odd that it has no toning. The coin appears to have heavy cleaning scratches, especially at the top of the obverse, but these are already there in your find video. Why? The impression it gives (maybe right, maybe wrong) is that you just pushed this previously acquired coin into a pile of loose dirt to make a video.

You start this thread with "Please help in the evaluation and defined", but you had already determined that the coin is a miliarense of Constantine, not a siliqua/etc, so apparently have already identified it. We then tell you it's RIC 131, and you then repost on FORVM with "Help identify and value". You're obviously a intelligent person, and I'm sure you can use a web browser and are well aware of the potential value, and why do you even care if you are not trying to sell it? You can communicate very well when you choose to, so why these "playing dumb" thread titles ?

Having said all that, there does seem to be a potential history of the coin where it's condition might be explained - possible use as jewelry with a soldered suspension loop and/or maybe a hammered on bezel that could explain the edge flattening (lack of beaded edge), maybe having been originally found in an encrusted state then harshly cleaned to explain the deep scratches at top of obverse (and top of reverse), or maybe those scratches are from a crude removal of a suspension loop ?

If you just said "I bought it on violity" we'd still be questioning the coin, but it doesn't help that find story seems suspect as well.

Edited January 10 by Heliodromus

[pavlo]

13 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

Ну я ще сам не впевнений, тому не "відразу фейк", але ...

1) Є проблеми з самою монетою

2) Є проблеми з вашою історією пошуку/відео, які не відповідають монеті

Поверхні монети виглядають дивно, особливо (на мій погляд) шорсткість поверхні/ямки на ободах та нозі Віртва тощо. Краї монети дійсно мають *деякий* натяк на шов, але в інших випадках така ж дивна шорсткість як і деякі інші монети - вони не виглядають оригінальними/натуральними. Легенда виглядає «м’якою» – краї літер зливаються з поверхнею. Зник бісерний край - залишився плоский обідок. Якщо уважно придивитися, то на монеті можна побачити те, що може відливати бульбашки.

На вашому відео про знахідку показано лише те, що монету витягують із купи бруду на поверхні. Немає жодних доказів того, що монету дійсно викопали. Ви показуєте, як монету розтирають пальцями, і вона виглядає сріблястою — дивно, що вона не має тонування. Здається, на монеті є сильні подряпини від чищення, особливо у верхній частині аверсу, але вони вже є на вашому відео знахідки. чому Складається враження (можливо, правильне, можливо, неправильне), що ви просто штовхнули цю раніше придбану монету в купу пухкого бруду, щоб зробити відео.

Ви починаєте цю тему словами «Будь ласка, допоможіть в оцінці та визначенні», але ви вже визначили, що монета є міліаренсом Костянтина, а не силіква/тощо, тому, очевидно, уже ідентифікували її. Потім ми повідомляємо вам, що це RIC 131, а ви потім публікуєте на FORVM повідомлення «Допоможіть визначити та оцінити». Ви, очевидно, розумна людина, і я впевнений, що ви вмієте користуватися веб-браузером і добре усвідомлюєте потенційну цінність, і чому вас це хвилює, якщо ви не намагаєтесь продати це? Ви можете дуже добре спілкуватися, коли забажаєте, тож навіщо ці назви гіток, які нагадують дурня?

Зважаючи на все це, здається, існує потенційна історія монети, де її стан можна пояснити – можливе використання як прикраси з припаяною петлею для підвіски та/або, можливо, забитим безелем, що могло б пояснити сплощення краю (відсутність бісеру). краї), можливо, спочатку були знайдені в інкрустованому стані, а потім ретельно очищені, щоб пояснити глибокі подряпини у верхній частині аверсу (та у верхній частині реверсу), або, можливо, ці подряпини є результатом грубого видалення петлі підвіски?

Якби ви просто сказали «Я купив це на насильстві», ми б усе ще сумнівалися в монеті, але це не допомагає, що історія про знахідку також виглядає підозрілою.

Маючи таку монету в колекції,мені була цікава як монета так і її цінність,також самі розумієте що я почав знімати відео як тільки побачив шо то монета,подряпини над головою були одразу.. вибачте емоці