Vitellius Sestertius - Paduan?

[carthago]

Trying out my new Cannon 6D on some bronze and thought I'd throw this out for the group.  It's not really my area:

This coin was given to me by my father (no, he didn't get it in North Africa during WWII).  He's probably had it for 40+ years and said that Joel Malter once told him that it was likely a Paduan.  

It's 27.68g, 7h and appears to me to be or fashioned after BMCRE 58.  I can't really tell whether it's cast or struck, but I don't see any casting seam on the edge or other obvious signs of casting.  There appears to be some minor corrosion and deposits in the niches of the devices and lettering.  I'm used to looking at silver so who knows.

Any thoughts on what I've got here?

[Carausius]

Carthago:

First of all, nice picture. I'd say the Canon 6D makes the grade (big surprise).  I have an "old" 40D that I'm quite pleased with - even the kit lens takes decent macro pics.  

Second, this type WAS produced by Cavino/Paduans and is published in Lawrence's "Medals by Giovanni Cavino" and Klawans' "Imitations and Inventions of Roman Coins".  Klawans points out that the original coins read TR.P. in the obverse legend, while the fakes read TR (omitting the P).  I am uncertain whether the P is on your example or not - and I wonder whether it may have been "worn" in that spot to avoid detection.  Klawans' book includes a photo of a BM "struck" example with a different obverse legend break than your example.    Lawrence's book does not include images, so I don't know whether Cavino (or whomever) produced different dies with different legend breaks.  Photo of the BM example from the Klawans book below.

[carthago]

Hi Carausius

Thanks for the info.  Very interesting indeed and you could be right about the TRP being omitted on purpose.  I don't have the coin with me right now but I'll look at it when I do to see if there's any hint in hand.

The camera is a beast.  I really have no real idea what I'm doing with cameras as it's just trail and error.  I wanted something I could tether as my Sony wouldn't/couldn't.  Being able to shoot a photo and see it on the computer right away is awesome and saves a lot of going back and forth.  I bought the wrong macro lens for this model so that's on order next week.  This is just the lens that came with the camera.  Photoshop helped balance the colors and exposure.

Thanks again for the info on the coin.

C

[antoninus1]

For me the coins seems to be cast.
First because of the overall softness of the features and second because of the pimples which can be seen on Vitellius´ throat.
Aren´t the dimples a chracteristic of casting?

[carthago]

Klawans points out that the original coins read TR.P. in the obverse legend, while the fakes read TR (omitting the P).  I am uncertain whether the P is on your example or not - and I wonder whether it may have been "worn" in that spot to avoid detection.

Upon close inspection, I can't tell if the P is there or not.  I *think* I can barely mark out the R but no hope on the P.  Thanks again, Carausius.

For me the coins seems to be cast.
First because of the overall softiness of the features and second because of the pimples which can be seen on Vitellius´ throat.
Aren´t the dimples a chracteristic of casting?

Yes, that would be my guess too.  The dimples exist in a lot of the recessed areas and around the letters but they look like corrosion to me instead of casting bubbles, but I could be wrong.  I haven't handled a lot of cast bronze coins before. 

[antoninus1]

I don´t know whether we talk about the same things.
With pimple (I looked up the word in a dictionary) I mean the raised bubbles in front of Vitellius´ throat.
Dimples are the holes that go into the metal, right? They could be corrosion or remains of gas (?) bubbles.

[carthago]

I don´t know whether we talk about the same things.
With pimple (I looked up the word in a dictionary) I mean the raised bubbles in front of Vitellius´ throat.
Dimples are the holes that go into the metal, right? They could be corrosion or remains of gas (?) bubbles.

Ah, I understand!  Actually, those aren't raised but they do look like it in the photo.  If they were raised, that would be a positive sign of casting but that's not what the surfaces look like on the actual coin. 

Thanks for your input Antoninus.

[Pscipio]

It is always difficult to go by picture but it does look cast, note the flatness around 3-6 o'clock on the obverse and the weak strike towards the edge on Mars' feet and trophy, both of which should not occur on a struck coin.

Lars