When I first looked at the coin in question here, the thing that struck me was
fabric rather than
style (but I agree the
style looks odd for
Alexandria). The
XXI large folles I've experienced (not all that many) tend to have a more
billon look rather like Martin's example and often have considerable remaining silver coat. The original coin here looks redder and less alloyed. These were made when the
alloy was important so I'd expect the question here might be cleared up with a test to see if the coin actually is 4.77% silver as advertised.
I'll throw out three coins I feel apply to the subject. I'd be interested in hearing if any of you doubt the correctness of these. They came from more than slightly respected name sources.
Diocletian but the
XXI is all on one
side.
Galerius but from the same period. Note the 'billon look'.
Constantius .... and yes this is a trick question.
Clay molds for ancient
cast fakes are known from this period and locality. The question we must ask is how to tell the product of these ancient counterfeiters from that of their modern day descendants. The seller of the Constantius was of the opinion the coin was ancient. Obviously it is a
cast. It is not
good enough to be more than a tourist item if modern but appears to me to be about what I would expect to come from a user of the (supposedly old) clay molds I have seen. Opinions?
Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers
