Antonia Minor - contemporary imitation?

[Arminius]

Hello,

the crude portrait style and the missing S - C on the reverse of this dupondius might indicate a contemporary imitation:

Antonia Minor, Augusta, Rome (?) mint, struck under Claudius, circa 41-50 AD.,
Æ Dupondius (28-30 mm / 11,14 g),
Obv.: A[NT]ONIA - AVGVSTA , draped bust of Antonia right, wearing hair in long plait.
Rev.: T[I CLAVDIVS CAES]AR AVG PM TR P IMP / [S - C] , Claudius standing left, holding simpulum.
RIC I 92 (Claudius) ; BMC 166 ; Coh. 6 .

Any additional informations? Has someone von Kaenel´s studies?

Thanks and regards

[silvernut]

Just for comparison, I recently posted in some other thread this example of this coin that I got in a batch of uncleaneds. I never considered it might be a contemporary fake, although it's true that in my case, the SC are clearly visible. Your coin is strange, but it does seem to be RIC 92 (Claudius).

Regards,
Ignasi

[moonmoth]

Here's a comparison on the other direction.  The obverse of this is very odd, but the reverse looks more normal than on the first coin shown.  Even so, that reverse is not out of line with some of the examples around. 

It may be that the S C has worn right off the coin.  With a bit of imagination I can see faint traces still there ..  but this is pushing it a bit; only with the coin in hand could you really tell.

[PeterD]

Here's my example of RIC 92. It's difficult to judge the portrait style on any of these coins due to the wear.

The footnote in RIC does say "An issue frequently imitated...". The SC is quite prominent in my example, it's difficult to believe that it has simply worn away on yours.

[Arminius]

Moonmoth is right, there are traces of S C below a fine sand layer.
So my coin should be an official issue - still inside the style tolerances.

Thanks for your input!

[curtislclay]

I would consider all of the dupondii shown to be provincial imitations.

None of them has the finer style of Rome, nor the style of the three largest branch-mint series, which may have been struck in northern Italy, Gaul, and Spain respectively.

No coins comparable to the ones shown are in von Kaenel, since he included only what he considered to be official coins, not provincial imitations.

It is however possible that some of the bronze coins of Claudius now considered to be provincial imitations were actually struck by authorized branch mints which just employed unskillful engravers!

[mdelvalle]

Hello Mr. Curtis, this is my very worn example of RIC 92, is also a provincial imitation?.

Gracias.
Mario

[curtislclay]

You are correct.

[mdelvalle]

Muchas Gracias Mr. Curtis.
Mario

[silvernut]

I would consider all of the dupondii shown to be provincial imitations.

None of them has the finer style of Rome, nor the style of the three largest branch-mint series, which may have been struck in northern Italy, Gaul, and Spain respectively.

No coins comparable to the ones shown are in von Kaenel, since he included only what he considered to be official coins, not provincial imitations.

It is however possible that some of the bronze coins of Claudius now considered to be provincial imitations were actually struck by authorized branch mints which just employed unskillful engravers!

How interesting! I'll make a note of that for my coin. Thanks!
Regards,
Ignasi