Not saying it isn't so, but this is the frst I have heard of R as a banker's mark on Roman coins
What is the reference, if any, that documents this as an authentic banker's mark?
Hi Lloyd, did you see the CNG
I am not sure why it would/could not be so. There are a lot
of letters used as banker's marks, and "R" is a Latin letter.
Besides which, the two "R"s on the illustrated Caesar
are quite different in shape, and perhaps size.
There is also another one for Ahenobarbus here: http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=185970
So either CNG
have been fooled, or there are at least two!
And that is just from a few seconds scan of their holdings. Who
knows what else is out there among other dealer's holdings.
As I said above, the "R" in-and-of-itself is NOT what condemns
any coin, there MUST be other factors of note. Some of those
factors are clear and obvious on the examples you illustrate.
Suspicion is not enough, you must have substantiation.
Another example of an "R" on a reproduction coin, or even "RR",
are the Ready electrotypes produced at/for the British Museum.
However, those stamps are usually on the edge.
Again, the "R" stamps/marks alone DO NOT comdemn anything,
at worst they are merely signposts to look for other signs that
may give some indication or otherwise about authenticity.
Addition to the preceding... The letter R is freshly stamped (i.e. unworn) on the Romans
posted in this thread
and clearly post-dates the "wear" of the coin! Anyone else think this a little strange? It would only work if the banker countermarked
a worn coin then it was hoarded it immediately, preserving the fresh banker's mark. Possible, but it seems unlikely that all such countermarked
specimens would show such an inconsistency in "wear" pattern for the countermark
versus that of the overall coin.
The wear makes perfect sense. You don't mint a coin and then
immediately stamp it - you get a coin in circulation, probably a
little worn, maybe very worn, and then it gets stamped. Don't
forget that the stamp is incuse
, not in relief as is the rest of the
coin. This really shouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp.
In fact, do what I did, and search for "bank mark denar" and
see just how many turn up, and the variety of letters that are
presented. Do you also arbitrarily condemn the "C" as copy,
or the "D" as doubtful, or the "F" as fake
? Of course not, you
would need additional information for each, and the same
must be so for the "R", or any other letter for that matter.
is definitely on R for REPLICA for all the examples posted on this thread
... they also bear other characteristics suggestive of a non-struck origin.
I am interested in reading your reasons - and evidence - for
condemning the CNG
coins, and both of the Caesar
pieces. It is
quite clear (or should be) that the ugly 'Athens
' and 'Alexander
'tetradrachms' are modern fake
If I can offer anything else, please let me know. I am happy to
clarify whatever I can to assist.
All the best,