Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Fouree vs Suberatus  (Read 6342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dino

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Quaestor
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?
    • My Gallery
Fouree vs Suberatus
« on: November 23, 2010, 03:58:10 pm »
Someone in another thread asked if a particular coin might be a fouree or a suberatus. 

I'd like to explore the definitions a bit just to make sure I understand the differences.

As I understand it a suberatus is a copper-cored coin covered with a layer of silver foil.

A fouree is any fake coin purporting to be silver, but with a core of base metal.  It can be covered with a layer of siilver foil or have a surface enriched by a wash to make it appear to be silver.  I presume there are other ways to create them as well.

Am I missing the boat?  Am I missing any nuances?

Thanks.

Offline Galaxy

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2010, 04:03:33 pm »
I had always understood the two terms to be entirely interchangeable. Subaerat seems to be more commonly used in Europe, at least outside of France.

Offline areich

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 8706
    • Ancient Greek and Roman Coins, featuring BMC online and other books
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2010, 05:13:42 pm »
That's how I understand it as well. Subaeratus (or plated) is for those who cannot remember how to spell fourré(sp?).
Andreas Reich

Offline Syltorian

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2010, 05:48:51 pm »
Subaeratus is Latin for "bronze/copper underneath", and would have been the/a Roman way of calling this type of coin. The word is used by Persius in his Satire 5 ("nequa subaerato mendosum tinniat auro"), so in this instance used for gold, not silver. I don't think it really mattered how you hid the core, just that it was beneath the layer of precious metal - as opposed to counterfeits made by adulterated metal.

I have encountered "subaerat", without the Latin -us ending exclusively in German so far, where I haven't come across "fourré" yet, but that may be lack of experience.

Fourré (or fourrée in the feminine form) is French for "stuffed" ("crammed" or "filled"): the silver/gold coin is stuffed with a baser metal. Fourré seems to be more frequent in France, obviously, and in English-speaking countries. Again, this latter comment is based on personal experience, and may thus be unreliable.

In conclusion, I would hold both to mean the same thing. Gold/Silver above, baser metal within.

The usage depends perhaps on which language you are writing in, and, in languages besides French and Latin, whether you'd rather borrow a word from the French or from the Romans, or use a homegrown one - ("plated", perhaps, for the English speakers. Unless that means something different again).

Edit: of course, we can always through the Greek hypochalkos (like subaeratus, literally eaning "copper underneath") into the mix.

Offline casata137ec

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
  • Trying not to screw up...one coin at a time...
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2010, 06:43:18 pm »
I may be totally off my rocker, but isnt there a name like Subaeratus for "fourees" with an iron core? I seem to remember either reading a thread here on FORVM (could have been a year or two ago...or not) or possibly an article going in to this...

Chris
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto - Missouri 1822

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=19691

Offline Pscipio

  • Tribunus Plebis 2009
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Si vis pacem, cole iustitiam
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2010, 12:49:46 am »
You probably mean subferratus, from "ferrum" = Iron.

Lars
Leu Numismatik
www.leunumismatik.com

Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2010, 01:49:21 am »
To me, the term "fourrée" implies unofficial, while subaeratae can be either unofficial or, as in the case of many later imperial coins with silver washes, official.
Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline areich

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 8706
    • Ancient Greek and Roman Coins, featuring BMC online and other books
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2010, 03:49:48 am »
I've never seen subaeratus used for silvered coins, always just for silver-plated ones.
Andreas Reich

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2010, 04:50:41 am »
That's how I understand it as well. Subaeratus (or plated) is for those who cannot remember how to spell fourré(sp?).

"Plated" is even easier to spell and involves fewer fancy foreign words!

Offline Galaxy

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2010, 09:18:50 am »
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)

Maffeo

  • Guest
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2010, 09:38:34 am »
'fourèe' is French for the Latin 'suberatus'. The meaning is identical: a base metal ancient fake plated in precious metal, either silver or gold.

dltcoins

  • Guest
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2010, 09:55:03 am »
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)

or 'Constantinopolis'...  ;D

Maffeo

  • Guest
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2010, 10:00:55 am »
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)

or 'Constantinopolis'...  ;D

I call it Byzantium myself, but then I'm just an old fogie.

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2010, 10:06:53 am »
I am 100% in agreement with the use of the two term interchangably.  I offer as the basis for my opinion page one of William Campbell's Greek and Roman Plated Coins where he refers to his subject as "the probable method or methods of silver plating as exemplified in ancient coins - the fourree or subaerati pieces."  For no better reason I spell the word with two R's and two E's just like he did but I'm too lazy to trick my keyboard into accenting the first E so I don't bother with that.    I really enjoyed Campbell's book and recommend it to all!

The book concerns itself with what I call the silver foil method fourrees or, again, what I would call plated pieces rather than the late Roman washed items.  Neither word has any relationship to whether or not the coins were made officially or not but refers only to the fact that there is a better covering intentionally placed over a more base core.   For the purpose of naming it makes no difference who made the things but only how they made them.  I also disallow the term being applied to coins which were 'pickled' in acid to surface enrich the flans before striking.  To be plated, there needed to be a sandwich of dissimilar metals.  

A term for the iron core things probably is not common because the coins made and surviving are so rare.  I have seen a couple as opposed to thousands of fourrees.  

Finally, I'll mention that I am unreasonable enough that I irrationally discount the opinions of people who use the term fourree to refer to fakes of other styles.  Fourrees may be fake (or 99% may be fake - your choice) but not all fakes are fourrees.  Using the term in this manner strikes me as a sign of not having done the basic study necessary to understand the question.   Call it a pet peeve.

I'll also mention that recent years have really seen an increase in the market price of plated denarii.  When I developed an interest in them, common ones were worth less than ordinary late Romans in unsectacular condition.  Only rare types sold well.  When we started seeing a lot of the so-called 'Limes' denarii (not produced by the foil method but another topic altogether) there seemed to be a great increase in dealers willing to sell the things to beginners without full explanation and a subsequent increase in collectors that thought it was normal to find denarii made of copper.   We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.  

Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2010, 01:05:40 pm »
I'm too lazy to trick my keyboard into accenting the first E so I don't bother with that.  

To type é, press down the Alt key and while holding it down type 130 on the number keypad on the far right-hand side of your keyboard.

I also prefer the fourrée spelling with two Rs and two Es, not that it matters really.

As to subaeratae (or subaerati, if you prefer), the word literally means "bronze underneath," so I think it could correctly be used for any sort of silver plated, washed, or sandwiched coin with bronze at the core, unofficial or official. In any event, I seldom use the term. "Fourrée" works just fine for me for the silver plated counterfeits and imitatives and "silver washed" works fine for the later official ones.

I'll also mention that recent years have really seen an increase in the market price of plated denarii.  When I developed an interest in them, common ones were worth less than ordinary late Romans in unsectacular condition.  Only rare types sold well.  When we started seeing a lot of the so-called 'Limes' denarii (not produced by the foil method but another topic altogether) there seemed to be a great increase in dealers willing to sell the things to beginners without full explanation and a subsequent increase in collectors that thought it was normal to find denarii made of copper.   We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.   

I'll second that!
Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2010, 11:20:28 pm »
Quote from: commodus on November 24, 2010, 01:05:40 pm
"Fourrée" works just fine for me for the silver plated counterfeits and imitative and "silver washed" works fine for the later official ones.

The problem is that when we all have our own personal definitions, communications breaks down.  We differ in that I allow for fourree coins that are not counterfeit and silver washed ones that are.   Perhaps 'plated' is a better term since so many people now seem to accept fourree as a synonym of fake without understanding that all fakes are not plated.   I have previously used it instead of 'plated' reserving that term for 'something shown in the plates' (or is it a hold over from stamp collecting days where it means the location of a stamp on a sheet?). 

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'  Lewis Carroll

Offline Daniel Stewart

  • Conservator
  • Praetorian
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 11:37:43 pm »
  We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.  

I also would very much like to see such a study. William Campbell's book which Doug Smith mentions is excellent but is almost 80 years old and largely concerned with the technology of manufacturing fourees. A definitive discussion of the chronology, manufacture, distribution and economics of fourees would be fascinating. If it included material on limes and barbarous coins, that would be a bonus.
There are, I guess, a number of factors that would make such a study difficult. If records of official Roman mints are scarce, what hope is there for information about illegal ones. Also, my impression (although I don't know) is that no museum has systematically collected fourees on the same scale as official coins so there isn't the same physical basis for scholarship.

Still these coins are very interesting and, although I hesitate to contradict Doug Smith whose website has been so valuable to me, they are still inexpensive--I just received a batch of 16 limes and fourees from FORVM for which I paid $90, less than $6 a coin! Some are not in great shape but others approach VF. They are mostly Severans and that is the basis of an interesting question--is the widespead availability of Severan fourees a reflection of the influx of coins from the Balkans or were relatively more fourees manufactured during that period and why?

Perhaps it would be a useful start to create a sticky thread where people with interesting fourees could post photographs.

Dan

Maffeo

  • Guest
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2010, 06:10:34 am »
I agree, of course, that fourrèe or suberatus is not the equivalent of ancient fake, for many ancient fakes were not fourèe.
But, perhaps, fourrèe is the equivalent of ancient plated fake.
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?


Offline Syltorian

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2010, 06:41:34 am »
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?

As regards "official fourrés", this topic has been discussed here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67128.0 (and follow the link to Andrew McCabe's site), and touched upon here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67047.0 There is no real consensus on this topic either on this board or in the numismatic or academic world in general, but the articles posted by Andrew clearly tend towards eliminating any evidence for "official fourrés".   

Considering the ancient sources and their worries about plated coins, it does not make sense to me that a plated coin could somehow be "not fake" (even accepting for a moment the idea that some plating was ordered by the mint officials themselves, in Rome or elsewhere, the actual users of the coin would not consider it official).

Even the barbarians (at least some) cared: Tacitus quite clearly mentions that the Germans preferred serrati and bigati for their purer silver. They appear to have known about adulteration and plating.

Still, there were unofficial (barbarous) plated coins. There's an example in my gallery. It's even serrate, so it might have fooled those German tribes, too.  ;) I still doubt even the Dacians or "eastern Celts" would have accepted it as the real thing once the core became visible.
Link: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=3327&pos=0

Offline Reid Goldsborough

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
    • Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2010, 11:06:50 am »
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.
oldestcoins.reidgold.com
athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com
alexanderthegreatcoins.reidgold.com
medusacoins.reidgold.com
thracecoins.reidgold.com

Offline dougsmit

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
    • Ancient Greek & Roman Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2010, 12:25:09 am »
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.

Excellent overview.

Question:  Can anyone offer an example of a coin type that is unknown solid but exists fourree?

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2010, 05:18:43 am »
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?

As regards "official fourrés", this topic has been discussed here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67128.0 (and follow the link to Andrew McCabe's site), and touched upon here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67047.0 There is no real consensus on this topic either on this board or in the numismatic or academic world in general, but the articles posted by Andrew clearly tend towards eliminating any evidence for "official fourrés".   



There is no consensus only amongst amateurs, but amateurs deal in opinions rather than in academic proofs - if you think your views are strong enough and you have evidence to back it then write an academic article and join the academics! But please, read the existing body of academic evidence first, as documented on my web-page: (NB this only covers Roman Republican coins and make no claim for Greek or Roman Imperial issues): Some of you may not like the confident tone in which parts of it are written - the words are not mine but those of the various academics who wrote the material - but read deep into the footnotes and make up your minds on the material presented rather than on instinct.
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Plated.html 

There is an almost universal consensus among academics that plated (Roman Republican) coins are almost all forgeries (and a few may have been struck with purloined dies, or at military mints under times of difficulty). There are a few who doubt, but their doubts have not been robustly laid out nor widely accepted, and as I understand it what doubts there are relate to a small proportion plated coins having been struck with official dies but that may be simply evidence of malpractice and not in any way indicating official sanction. For the academic consensus and its underlying evidence see my page.

Michael Crawford wrote to me again yesterday, having looked at the web-page. He seemed extremely pleased at how the information had been presented, in fact describing the page as "extraordinary and magnificent". That's good enough for me, but many other Forum participants gave me a great deal of help in assembling the evidence, so his thanks are to be shared.


Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2010, 05:25:41 am »
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.

Excellent overview.

Question:  Can anyone offer an example of a coin type that is unknown solid but exists fourree?

Reid's page is an excellent short summary and I'm going to link to it.

On Doug's question I assume it is not directed at hybrids of normal types (of which vast quantities are known) or barbaric garbled types (similarly, vast quantities known), nor at slightly confused types intended to be as real (such as listed here: http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Plated.html#ListRRC ) but at a completely new coin type of an otherwise unknown moneyer in good style? I can't think of any ..

Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2010, 02:39:30 pm »
There is no consensus only amongst amateurs, but amateurs deal in opinions rather than in academic proofs - if you think your views are strong enough and you have evidence to back it then write an academic article and join the academics!

So that's it then.  Unless you are deemed to be an academic, you had better avoid having an opinion as it couldn't possibly be right.  Only an academic can possibly have a correct opinion.  ;)

Whilst it's good to know that the subject of fourrees as described by Mr McCabe, has been dealt with using academic proof, academic proof deals with the balance of probabilities.  We have to remember that whilst that can be the right approach, that doesn't always mean that the results are right.  Frequently, published academic works are not correct.  Not so many years ago it was academically proven that Darwin was wrong when he proposed evolution.  How ridiculous it must have seemed when Copernicus proposed that the sun did not indeed orbit the earth, as Geocentrism had already been academically proved by Plato, Aristotle etc.  More recently, it was academically proven that the Piltdown man was really the missing link. 

I will leave you to your own opinions, academics and non-academics alike. :)

regards

Mark


Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2010, 05:57:32 pm »
I am curious now. As a historian who has authored a number of academic papers in my field, though none in the area of ancient numismatics (I have authored several academic papers on modern numismatic subjects), would I, for purposes of this argument, be considered an amateur or an academic? It is a vague line, no? I would hardly consider myself an amateur numismatist, but I am not a "professional" one, either. A professional would, to be bluntly honest, be a dealer who makes his living specifically in the field of numismatics. As a historian, I try to apply the same standards and criteria to my study of ancient coins that I do to other areas of historical scholarship. Indeed, I collect ancient coins because of their history. Again, however, I have not published on the subject. In my opinion, both as a member of the academic community and as a collector, it is not whether one holds a particular degree or what one has published that makes one an expert, but rather the extent of one's experience, knowledge, and expertise in a particular field. Therein lies the difference between an educated opinion and a baseless whim, not in what one has or hasn't published or what degrees one does or doesn't hold.
Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2010, 06:35:14 pm »

Offline Reid Goldsborough

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
    • Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2010, 07:09:47 pm »
oldestcoins.reidgold.com
athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com
alexanderthegreatcoins.reidgold.com
medusacoins.reidgold.com
thracecoins.reidgold.com

Offline ickster

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2010, 10:08:47 pm »

Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2010, 01:47:41 am »
Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline Hydatius

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • I love this forum!
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2010, 09:23:00 am »
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire.

Offline Reid Goldsborough

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
    • Coins
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2010, 09:38:23 am »
oldestcoins.reidgold.com
athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com
alexanderthegreatcoins.reidgold.com
medusacoins.reidgold.com
thracecoins.reidgold.com

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2010, 12:49:37 pm »
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2010, 04:22:53 pm »

Offline Dino

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Quaestor
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?
    • My Gallery
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2010, 05:06:23 pm »

Offline casata137ec

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
  • Trying not to screw up...one coin at a time...
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2010, 12:24:16 am »
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto - Missouri 1822

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=19691

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12104
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2010, 03:08:30 pm »
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline jmuona

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
  • I love this forum!
Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2010, 02:46:32 pm »

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity