Julius Caesar + P. Crepusius mule

[Din X]

Does such mules really exit?

I thought that such hybrids are manly plated/fourees.

This one does not look plated and should so, if authentic be a mule (official issue in good silver).

There is a large time gap between this issues 82 BC to  47BC = 36 years

Is there any chance that this one is real ?

Obverse Julius Caesar Crawford 458/1; Sydenham 1013                                  47 BC. Chr

Reverse P. Crepusius Crawf. 361/1c, Syd 73                                                      82 BC. Chr

Not sure if cast or not from picture, I bought it yesterdays only to see if it is cast or not.
Seller hasn t sent it so far.
Coin was sold on ebay by a Romanian seller, he had some authentic modern coins for sale, too (most NGC salbbed).
His roman republic coin were all worn and from pictures it is not clear if cast or not.

Picture 1 the mule

Picture 2+3 authentic normal coins with correct die combination

[tetrico]

If good, it may be a dacian local production.
This obverse type of Julius Caesar is known with the reverse type of Augustus ric 207 (plated coin) and with others reverses (but now I don't remember others references, probably I have some articles in my archives but I have to search).

You could try to see here:

http://rrimitations.ancients.info/index.html
https://www.academia.edu/29448651/Dacian_Imitations_of_Roman_Republican_Denarii

sorry for my english!

[Din X]

The coin actually comes from Dacia but the style seems to be official and no imitation.
The coin is not cast, but the corrosion holes on the reverse worry me.
But if I look into the holes I can not see copper.
Weight is with 3,3g low but Crepusius denari with such low weight seem to exist but they generally have about 4g.
I fear now that it could be plated and a fouree.

What do you think?

Your help is appreciated.


 

[Andrew McCabe]

The coin actually comes from Dacia but the style seems to be official and no imitation.
The coin is not cast, but the corrosion holes on the reverse worry me.
But if I look into the holes I can not see copper.
Weight is with 3,3g low but Crepusius denari with such low weight seem to exist but they generally have about 4g.
I fear now that it could be plated and a fouree.

What do you think?

Your help is appreciated.

If it's plated then it's a usual example of plated coins made using dies impressed from real coins - hence the style match - and finished by hand - hence the letters look a bit odd.

If it's not plated then it's a usual Dacian imitative. There is something odd about the lettering style on the reverse. It's not typically official.

Whether or not its plated has to be assessed with the coin in hand. It doesn't look plated.

Since in either scenario it's imitative, the weight is not relevant because it's not under official mint control.

[Din X]

The coin actually comes from Dacia but the style seems to be official and no imitation.
The coin is not cast, but the corrosion holes on the reverse worry me.
But if I look into the holes I can not see copper.
Weight is with 3,3g low but Crepusius denari with such low weight seem to exist but they generally have about 4g.
I fear now that it could be plated and a fouree.

What do you think?

Your help is appreciated.

If it's plated then it's a usual example of plated coins made using dies impressed from real coins - hence the style match - and finished by hand - hence the letters look a bit odd.

If it's not plated then it's a usual Dacian imitative. There is something odd about the lettering style on the reverse. It's not typically official.

Whether or not its plated has to be assessed with the coin in hand. It doesn't look plated.

Since in either scenario it's imitative, the weight is not relevant because it's not under official mint control.

Thank you, your concerns are right, there is something wrong with the coin.
When looked again at the coin a while ago under magnification I realized that it is actually cast:(
I saw what I wanted to see first. ^^
The holes seem to be casting defects and not from corrosion, I did not know that casting defect can be that sharp .
There is a pearl on obverse.
It has a fresh scratch applied to distract.
Edge looked ok, no obvious file marks and traces of sprue but the edge cracks are not as sharp as they should be.

I gambled and lost.

So are the odd letters the results of detail loss from casting?
The letters could have been recutted or modified in the mould but if it makes sense is the question.

So it is either a cast from an real hybrid or the forgers created a hybrid.

If the host was actually a hybrid I will try to aquire it, if it will ever appear at auction.

So were authentic Dacian counterfeits of Roman coins made with casted transfer dies, possibly recutted in some cases or are Dacian counterfeits fakes from modern dies?

[Andrew McCabe]

...
So it is either a cast from an real hybrid or the forgers created a hybrid.

If the host was actually a hybrid I will try to aquire it, if it will ever appear at auction.

So were authentic Dacian counterfeits of Roman coins made with casted transfer dies, possibly recutted in some cases or are Dacian counterfeits fakes from modern dies?

Dacian coins are not counterfeits and not modern. They aren't even ancient fakes. They are genuine ancient coins made in Dacia copying Roman Republican types, usually in good silver. I'd regard them as imitations. They were struck in a normal manner but the dies may have been made by impressing an official Roman Republican coin into a blank die then finisihing details by hand. This is the same technique as used for plated coins. Plated coins were intended to deceive however. Dacians were not intended to deceive - they are of good silver. Of course your piece might be a modern cast.

There's no chance at all that there was a real hybrid as host. The types are dated 40 years apart and 'real' hybrids are at most separated by 1 year or were from the same year. A 'real' hybrid has to have been made from two dies available at the mint at the same time. The manufacturers of this piece created the hybrid from two different coin types.

[Joe Sermarini]

Modern cast seems most likely. Dacian coins were struck.  Ancient casts would usually use only one coin to make the mold.

I think it does look cast in the photos. The fields are wavy, which I understand is due to uneven cooling. You don't see that with struck coins (except for thin coins that actually are wavy).