Author Topic: Unknown Fausta follis ??? (Read 2015 times)

quadrans · « **on:** July 26, 2014, 01:48:28 pm »

I find this Fausta AE-Follis , one of my friend collection ...
I never seen something similar...

Somebody have any opinion, or exact refference or other known example..

Fausta (290 -326 A.D.), AE-3 Follis,

, RIC VII

, -/-//SMN(orH)T, */FAV/STA/AVG,
avers:- No legend, Draped bust right.
revers:- */FAV/STA/AVG, with four row.
exergo: -/-//SMN(orH)T, diameter: 17mm, weight: 2,04g, axis: 6h,
mint:

, date:

A.D., ref: RIC-VII-???, p-

Im sorry the pictures quality are bad because I used only my old handy

$:-\$

Any help are welcome
Q.

Lech Stępniewski · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2014, 05:40:35 pm »

Hi Jozsef,

is it possible that the mintmark is SMRP or SMRT?

Worn R sometimes looks like H (or N).

My guess is that your coin belongs to ROME 281-286 and should go after ROME 286 (with star over legend).

SC · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2014, 08:34:52 am »

The mint mark looks most like SMN

.

But the reverse is very odd.

This dynastic coin type is only known for Fausta, and for Helena, from Antioch. And there it has the reverse

/ FLAV MAX / FAVSTA / AVG / SMANT /

.

The coin you show has a star at the top. In this series Constantine had a wreath at top, his sons have a star (all three) or wreath (Constantine II and Constantius II on one issue), and the two ladies have the

. There was clear symbolism here and Fausta should not have a star.

I also worry that the pearl ring does not look quite like most originals.

The bust looks closest to one you find at Siscia (I mean on the SPES REIPVBLICAE type as this dynastic issue was not struck there).

If original it would be a hugely important coin.

I wonder if it could be a fake, possibly from an original Fausta SPES type.

Better/shaper images would be great if you can get them from your friend.

Shawn

Lech Stępniewski · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2014, 11:01:57 am »

Quote from: otlichnik on July 28, 2014, 08:34:52 am

There was clear symbolism here and Fausta should not have a star.

Hi, Shawn

I am not sure that we should take this symbolism so strictly. The star and crescent is nice for ladies but there are also well-known coins minted for Helena and Fausta with star on reverse.

Wreath would be a surprise. But not star.

If this coin is genuine and the mintmark is SMN

then it should be listed after NICOMEDIA 98. According to Bruun, the unique example of NICOMEDIA 98 (officina B) is in Vienna.

On my NOT IN RIC there are also two examples from officina

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/notinric/7nic98_d.html

The weight and the diameter of all these coins are much the same:

2.30 g 17 mm
2.12 g 18 mm
Fausta: 2.04 g 17 mm

quadrans · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2014, 12:30:29 pm »

Hi Lech and Shawn

)

I hope it is interesting ....

Of course I try to prepare a better picture as soon as possible but my friend live more than 200 km from my home...
few days I will meet him again....
Thank your interest best regards
Q.

SC · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2014, 04:44:59 am »

Lech,

I meant on that dynastic group. I think all the coins for the ladies on that entire series have star in crescent.

Shawn

quadrans · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2014, 04:39:09 am »

Hi Lech and Shawn..
Now I received some better picture but not as good as I like (like my pic)

but lookig ok the mintmark are SMNΓ

The portret side litle bit dark but nicely visible
It is genuin not imitation, maybe unofficial ,but...

Best regards
Q.

Vincent · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2014, 08:36:49 am »

Just my opinion and now with the better picture the lettering execution seems rather crude. Not sure if the coin was altered or the work done but a sloppy Celator at the mint. Hard to determine without the coin in hand and several expert eyes evaluating the piece.
In either case, an interesting oddity and needs more research. The style of the obverse reminds me of Antioch, but hard to really be sure.

Lech Stępniewski · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2014, 12:47:48 pm »

Quote from: Vincent on July 30, 2014, 08:36:49 am

the lettering execution seems rather crude.

In my opinion the lettering is no more crude than this:

Note "S" which is slightly bigger than other letters

quadrans · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2014, 03:25:00 pm »

Hi
I agree with Lech it is looking like a normal antioch mint..

Q.

Lech Stępniewski · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2014, 05:58:47 pm »

Quote from: quadrans on July 30, 2014, 03:25:00 pm

antioch mint..

Nicomedia.

Vincent · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2014, 11:00:34 pm »

Looks like Nicomedia had substandard penmanship LOL. Thank Lech for the pics. Still would like to see his coin with my own eyes.

SC · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2014, 06:47:08 am »

Me too. As I noted, unlike other unlisted examples of this dynastic series which have filled obvious gaps in the series, this coin would add a significant element - the first such coin for one of the ladies struck outside Antioch.

Given the prevalence of well-tooled forgeries in this era - the PLVRA NATAL FEL coin and many of the recent SPES PVBLIC examples such a coin deserves very close scrutiny.

Not saying it IS fake, just saying it has extra hoops to jump through to have such an important coin fully accepted.

Shawn

quadrans · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2014, 01:15:04 pm »

Quote from: lech.stepniewski on July 30, 2014, 05:58:47 pm

Quote from: quadrans on July 30, 2014, 03:25:00 pm
antioch mint..

Nicomedia.

Oh yeahh so sorry we are talking about earliar of course Nicomedia ...

Q

quadrans · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2014, 01:16:31 pm »

Quote from: Vincent on July 30, 2014, 11:00:34 pm

Looks like Nicomedia had substandard penmanship LOL. Thank Lech for the pics. Still would like to see his coin with my own eyes.

Hi Vincent Thank you ..
Q.

quadrans · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2014, 01:24:53 pm »

Quote from: otlichnik on July 31, 2014, 06:47:08 am

Me too. As I noted, unlike other unlisted examples of this dynastic series which have filled obvious gaps in the series, this coin would add a significant element - the first such coin for one of the ladies struck outside Antioch.

Given the prevalence of well-tooled forgeries in this era - the PLVRA NATAL FEL coin and many of the recent SPES PVBLIC examples such a coin deserves very close scrutiny.

Not saying it IS fake, just saying it has extra hoops to jump through to have such an important coin fully accepted.

Shawn

Hi Shawn as you know it is not my coin but it was in my hand and I saw earliar several thousand small bronze coin.. etc..
loking genuin for me..

Best regards
Q.

Vincent · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2014, 07:21:17 am »

That is a big positive and thank you again for sharing this with us all here. If I were the owner, I would consider having a well known dealer/numismatist verify what you have determined and issue a paper statement (Forum may provide). For such a piece, it would seem to be worthwhile. The drawback is the "expense" and possible lose in the mail if needs to be sent.

quadrans · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2014, 08:28:42 am »

Quote from: Vincent on August 02, 2014, 07:21:17 am

That is a big positive and thank you again for sharing this with us all here. If I were the owner, I would consider having a well known dealer/numismatist verify what you have determined and issue a paper statement (Forum may provide). For such a piece, it would seem to be worthwhile. The drawback is the "expense" and possible lose in the mail if needs to be sent.

Thank you your suggestion..it is on the way..

Q.

quadrans · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2014, 08:56:46 am »

Hi all

I received new picture....

Best regards
Q.

Vincent · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2014, 09:31:42 am »

Thanks for the better picture. Still reminds me of Antioch style portrait for some reason. Keep us posted on what other folks think, both experts and otherwise.

quadrans · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2014, 04:30:34 pm »

Quote from: Vincent on August 03, 2014, 09:31:42 am

Thanks for the better picture. Still reminds me of Antioch style portrait for some reason. Keep us posted on what other folks think, both experts and otherwise.

OK
Thank you
Q.

romeman · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2022, 07:42:53 am »

Just a brief update on this. I acquired the Fausta dynastic (some years ago but I only noticed this thread now). It is so strange and unexpected that I was rather sceptical about its authenticity. However, after much study under stereo microscope, and careful removal of some encrustations, I conclude that it is genuine. And in my view it is an official product, not a contemporary imitation or fantasy coin.

We may consult some statistics to try to understand the coin. Antioch minted the largest amounts of dynastic bronzes. This was done in two steps. The first emission - RIC 52-26 - was for Constantine and the caesars, no females. My database has 274 specimens from that emission. The second emission was much larger and included the ladies. My database has 1025 examples from that emission. Now, of those 1025, there are 32 Helena and 21 Fausta. That is, the combined production for the ladies was only 5% of the total.

If that figure mirrors the output from the other mints, the chances of finding a lady from most of them is minimal. I know of 115 official dynastics from Trier, 77 from Cyzikus, 20 from Thessalonica, 8 from Ticinum, 8 from Nicomedia, 7 from Siscia, 4 from the vicennial emmission of Rome, and 4 from Heraclea. If all mints struck for the ladies, one might expect a few examples from Trier, and perhaps from Cyzikus, but not from the other. But of course we have no idea if the ladies were included in any of the mints apart from Antioch and Nicomedia.

Work continues on this! Meanwhile a few photos are attached. I apologize for the poor quality. I will make sure to make better ones when I publish these dynastics.

News:

Author Topic: Unknown Fausta follis ??? (Read 2015 times)