Identifying an ancient imitation Domitian Denarius

[Lucas H]

Many people were extremely helpful in helping me properly describe a Vespasian brockage.  Now, I'm asking for help in how to describe an ancient immitation of a Domitian Denarius.  3.19 grams, 17.6mm, 7h.  Came from Warren Esty who said it came from an Ex CNG auction 61 "part of a lot 1774."  I haven't frequented CNG much, so I can only guess what that means.  IF it's an ancient imitation, is it foree (I see no signs of breaks in the plating, even in the highly worn areas), or could it be silver, and someone was just profiting on the Roman frontiers by making such coins? 

How do I describe an ancient imitation "properly"?

[areich]

Hi Lucas, this is the lot your coin was in:

http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=291258

I don't really see why it is supposed to be an imitaion but then again I haven't looked at very many of these.

Andreas

[Andrew McCabe]

Many people were extremely helpful in helping me properly describe a Vespasian brockage.  Now, I'm asking for help in how to describe an ancient immitation of a Domitian Denarius.  3.19 grams, 17.6mm, 7h.  Came from Warren Esty who said it came from an Ex CNG auction 61 "part of a lot 1774."  I haven't frequented CNG much, so I can only guess what that means.  IF it's an ancient imitation, is it foree (I see no signs of breaks in the plating, even in the highly worn areas), or could it be silver, and someone was just profiting on the Roman frontiers by making such coins? 

How do I describe an ancient imitation "properly"?

Below is pictured, exactly as in the auction, CNG61 Lot 1774. The description is as follows:

"Sale: CNG 61, Lot: 1774. Estimate $200. Closing Date: Wednesday, 25 September 2002. Sold For $275. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee. Lot of ten AR “Denarii.” All are probably contemporary counterfeits. Lot contains the following: Four coins of Domitian; cf. RSC 242, 258, 259, and 272 // Six coins of Trajan: cf. RSC 85, 241, 394, 418, 219, and 402b. Average VF, all appear to be of good silver, not plated. A very interesting group. Ten (10) coins in lot. ($200)"

There is nothing implied in the lot description other than what is said, which included: "All appear to be of good silver, not plated; All are probably contemporary counterfeits". Clearly that was the view of the person who listed them, but it'll require expertise beyond knowledge of the auction listing to know why.

[David Atherton]

The style of that Domitian is certainly "off" which lends credence to it being an ancient imitation. Perhaps a limes denarius?

[Lucas H]

I'm a novice, but the style of the portrait and lettering looks off to me.  Someone at CNG, Warren, and David all thing it's off.  Assuming its a contemporary counterfeit, how are such things described?

[David Atherton]

I would catalog it as "ancient imitation of RIC such and such".

[jmuona]

The obverse appears to be "TRP IIII" and in any case not "V" or later, which goes well together with the aegis, but the reverse has CENS PPP, however, and this makes the obverse - reverse combination incorrect. This is typical of these old forgeries. So no corresponding RIC exists. Without a more complete reverse inscription, a RIC number would be impossible to figure out even if this were a real coin - the numbers are essential.
The owl and whatever it is is standing on are engraved all wrong.
s.
Jyrki Muona

[dougsmit]

Certainly it not a match of my coin but similar enough in style that I suspect the two were related in manufacture.  Mine is fourree and quite thickly plated compared to most fourrees.  I would not suggest cutting the coin in half but, without that, I would not rule out plating as a possibility either.  The question of importance is whether it was made in the first century or the 20th.  I suspect the first but can prove nothing.

There are many unofficial coins that are decent silver and a few that are even better than the real thing.  The official mint operated at a profit so it would be possible to make copies without losing.  We just don't know what the reasoning was behind every oddball coin we see.  Most were probably just counterfeits made to deceive but there is nothing to rule out the occasional local official who put out coins to meet a need with or without permission from the emperor.  An example of this might be found in the Aureolus issues of Postumus that get cataloged as fully official.  I have several clearly unofficial denarii from several different reigns (no Domitian) that are at least as good metal as the real thing (just different in style).

If you need evidence that this coin is unofficial and don't believe in reading the style, I'd suggest that it is unusual for both sides to carry a TRP date.  My coin has IMP on the reverse as it should.  I agree the obverse numeral should be higher than IIII but could also read the remnant here as VII which makes it quite reasonable. 

If you bought the coin from Warren Esty, you should have asked him for a full explanation on what he believed the status of the coin to be when you bought it.  I would value his opinion on the matter of an unofficial coin considerably above mine or most of the others who post here.  You might find his page interesting if for no other reason than it illustrates your coin:
http://esty.ancients.info/imit/imit1stC.html