I just picked up this
sestertius from the post office, and I’d like to show it to you for opinions.
Obv. L SEPT
SEV PER - T AUG
IMP VIIILaureate,
cuirassed bust right
Rev. AETER - ….., S – C
Aeternitas standing left, holding globe with
Phoenix in her right, and a fold of her dress in her left hand
18.7 g, 29 mm;
die axis 12 o’clock
This is an odd coin, mainly since a
sestertius for
Severus with an
Aeternitas reverse is neither attested in
RIC nor online (
wildwinds.com or
acsearch.info). The only mention of
Aeternitas in
Severus’ City of
Rome coinage is on the dynastic
denarii bearing the
portraits of
Caracalla and
Geta on the
reverse with the
legend AETERNIT
IMPERI (loosely translated as “The
Severan dynasty will rule forever!”). The
legend AETERNITAS AUG (with variants) occurs in
Emesa with moon and stars
reverse. The figure of
Aeternitas standing
had so far extensively been used for the two divinized Faustinae only.
When such an unknown
type surfaces, it is bound to raise suspicions about being
fake or unofficial. Let’s look for giveaways.
Surfaces: The surfaces are just slightly
pitted; they seem absolutely natural and untouched, like they should be for a coin that never developed much
patina.
Technique: The coin is, in parts at least, flatly struck; the letters on the left half of the
obv. are flat but legible, the right half of the
rev. inscription is illegible. The
portrait is well struck, the
rev. figure is somewhat flat; the sudden transition from relief to flat surface points to a flat strike as opposed to wear. Also, the
obverse portrait is hardly worn at all. The
reverse, although weakly struck, was made from a fresh die, as the sunken lines around the letters show. The letters, or their single dashes, were chiseled into the die with hubs, and this procedure raised material from the die’s surface around the letters, which was quickly worn down once the die was in use. This die was so fresh that, on the coin, you see more impression from the displaced material than from the actual letters in some places – note the S in S-C! This effect is most often visible on
sestertii of
Antoninus Pius.
Style: I’ll leave it to experts to judge the
style; in my opinion, the
portrait style is perfect for the
mint of
Rome, but the
wreath ties are rather sloppily and unconvincingly
engraved,
as is the collar of the
cuirass. The lettering is
fine, but the
legend division
PER – T AUG is unusual. On
acsearch, I found only PE – RT AUG and
PERT – AUG as partings for the eighth
imperatorial acclamation. Maybe
Curtis knows the
obv. die?
The
reverse is, well, almost normal in
style. Just a little
bit rougher, little
bit more
stylized than one would expect for a
Roman sestertius. For example, the
Phoenix on globe is poorly rendered; I
had at first mistaken it for a
jug on the
palm of the figure.
So we have an ALMOST normal looking
sestertius. Odd features are:
1. The
obv. legend parting (
PER – T)
2. The poorly done
wreath ties
3. The unusual
rev. type4. The slightly inferior
rev. style.
Lesser oddities are: The
weight which is low, but not out of range; the strike which is tilted, and therefore weak on one
side (
obv. left,
rev. right). These two things could happen on normal
sestertii too – many
Severan sestertii were well
engraved but carelessly struck.
So if we assume an unofficial production: Who would have made this, and why? Who would have invested a lot of
fine work, used prime materials and employed
good workmen to strike
imitative sestertii? We know many
fake denarii of the time made of inferior material for profit, but what would have been the gain of
sestertius forgers? Just for their size,
sestertii were hardest to make and least profitable. It is for a reason that virtually all
cast Limes bronzes are
asses.
If the coin is official, how do we explain points 1 to 4 above? A product of the
Mint of
Rome Rookie Training Workshop?
A
modern forgery? Nah. This is not
Bulgarian style, and Cavino did not produce weak strikes. Somebody who can engrave a
portrait like this, and who has the technical knowledge to produce this, could easily have avoided the mistakes listed above and made a
sestertius that would fool everybody without raising any suspicions. Also, the coin is certainly not
cast,
nor tooled.
I’m eagerly waiting for your ideas, since I’m puzzled with this coin.
Rupert
