FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board

Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Medieval, Islamic and Crusader Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 06:40:33 pm

Title: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 06:40:33 pm: This coin of which I have only the obverse to my seem is very doubtful.
It is a half "Grosso" of the Pope URBANVS VIII (1623-1644) of the family "Barberini"

...and gotten out of the same garden... I have marveled.

Your opinion?

ser
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: yafet_rasnal on May 12, 2003, 06:51:11 pm: Please post the reverse
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 07:18:30 pm: I don't have the photo. ;D ;D

ser
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 07:24:23 pm: SVB TVVM PRAESID (io).
(under your protection)

ser
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: yafet_rasnal on May 12, 2003, 07:24:46 pm: Sembran punti di saldatura. Sono troppo precisi per essere il risultato di un incendio
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 07:27:30 pm: Sono gocce molto misteriose...eppure non sembra fusa.
ser
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: yafet_rasnal on May 12, 2003, 07:41:40 pm: This drops are too straight...
...there's something strange on the other side too?
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on May 12, 2003, 07:55:55 pm: I on the other side don't see particular belongingses..... .peraps with strong enlargement.

ser
Title: Re:Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: yafet_rasnal on May 12, 2003, 08:13:50 pm: As i told you i don't think it's a forgery ...more likely someone tried to fix it as a ear-ring with saldering
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Follibus Fanaticus on September 08, 2005, 06:19:23 pm: Readers:

This coin is a half grosso of Urban VIII [1623-44], Muntoni 159-162. Since the obverse is not shown, I can not tell which exact number it is. Muntoni 162 alone has six varieties. Urban VIII has 247 Muntoni numbers. Varieties are almost endless. Urban liked art and his coinage is really nice. Check out plates 36-38 in the Berman book for a delightful eyefull.

Follibus Fanaticus
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: tacrolimus on September 09, 2005, 09:50:58 am: Quote from: Follibus Fanaticus on September 08, 2005, 06:19:23 pm
Readers:

This coin is a half grosso of Urban VIII [1623-44], Muntoni 159-162. Since the obverse is not shown, I can not tell which exact number it is.

The question, however, is not the attribution, but the droplets of metal that Ser noted on the obverse.
In Ser's opinion it's very likely the coin is not genuine.
I think Ser would love to hear your opinion also on this.

Luigi
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on September 09, 2005, 10:49:18 am: Could it have been heated subsequent to minting, and part of the alloy melted out? Is the style OK?
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on September 09, 2005, 04:42:12 pm: Hi Robert
I think that your hypothesis is very near to the truth.
Here it is still used to set on fire the stubbles of the wheat after the reaping... ;)

Best regards

ser
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on September 09, 2005, 05:03:43 pm: They used to do that here when I was a kid, and there would be great palls of smoke hanging over the countryside.
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: *Alex on September 28, 2005, 11:13:29 am: Rugser is Italian, he uses a translation program for his English and on the whole he manages very well. He is perfectly intelligible and nobody takes any notice of his (or anyone else's) grammatical or spelling errors.

Alex.
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: Rugser on September 28, 2005, 06:40:55 pm: Thanks Alex ;)

Scusami Fanaticus non ho tempo per andare a Oxford. :D :D

sergius
Title: Re: Urbanus VIII - Ancient forgery ?
Post by: yafet_rasnal on October 01, 2005, 04:19:20 am: Rugser, you don't need Oxford because they would tell you to use ...Urbanus. Indeed the correct way to refer to a historical figure is to call him/her with his/her name in motherlanguage; so, since the Vatican language is latin, also english speaking people should call him Urbanus.

Rugser, non hai bisogno di Oxford visto che ti insegnerebbero che il modo piu' corretto per riferirsi a tale papa e' Urbanus. Infatti la forma piu' corretta per riferirsi ad un personaggio storico e' usare il nome nella sua madrelingua; ora poiche' il Vaticano usa il latino come madrelingua, la forma corretta e' Urbanus.