unlisted semis : HADRIANUS and AELIUS

[gb29400]

Hi all,

every information welcome about this unlisted coin:

HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS
Leureated head right

R/ L AELIVS CAESAR
Bare head right

Brass Semis
3,92 g
19 mm
Axis 180°

Like Cohen 1 Aelius et Hadrien  moyen bronze


the photo is not very good

Guy

[curtislclay]

I'm afraid one has to wonder whether this isn't just a cleverly patinated fake combining portraits derived from two ordinary denarii.

First, the portraits don't belong together.  The obverse, with that large portrait and legend HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS, should date from c. 125-8, like the coins on BMC pl. 54.  Aelius, however, didn't become Caesar until 136 and his coinage all dates to 137.  At that time Hadrian's obv. legend was HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P and his portrait was smaller and different in other ways too.  So the genuine asses of Hadrian and Aelius that Guy cites, for example the spec. illustrated by Cohen on p. 267,  have obv. legend HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P and a different portrait.

Second, the denomination.  Hadrian didn't strike any brass semisses, except for those forming part of the series meant for circulation in Syria, BM pl. 83.7, which however again date to 125-8, long before Aelius came onto the scene.  Moreover the portraits on these genuine semisses have a smaller head and longer neck so don't match the portrait on Guy's coin.  Since Guy's coin seems to be exactly the size of a denarius, one has to suspect that it is a cast derived from the obverses of two denarii.

[gb29400]

Thanks Curtis.

I agree for the date combination which didn't work.

If the coin is a fake so it must be from roman time.
I found the coin in an uncleaned detector lot coming from Great Britain.
All the coins had a thick groundy patina. All where brass.
I was surprised to find the two portaits on the coin.

the portrait of Hadrian is very nice and the letter fine engraved.
Aelius portrait is not so fine but seems not cast as I can see it in my hand.

The theoric weight of a semis is 3,96 g and for a denarius is 3,38 g.
The weight of the coin is 3,92 g so very near of the semis weight.

anyway thanks again, Curtis, for your answer

Guy

[curtislclay]

The coin indeed looks ancient, and getting it for a low, per coin price in a large lot of detector finds would of could speak strongly for its antiquity.

The coin remains an enigma.  A modern forger of course combines two portraits on a coin to create an interesting novelty that will fetch a high price, but why would an ancient forger do so?

[Scotvs Capitis]

Stylistically, from a sculptor/artistic angle, the two sides of the coin are years apart. Very strange indeed.

[Goodies]

The coin remains an enigma.  A modern forger of course combines two portraits on a coin to create an interesting novelty that will fetch a high price, but why would an ancient forger do so?

Forgers didnt do bronze. If this comes from a metal detector find it must be genuine ancient coinage. Plating would add even more weight, so a contemporary forgery of a denarius seems improbable. Something that puzzles me is the fact that both sides of this coin, if it was ever struck, would have been made with a lower die. I think this must be unofficial coinage, dies conquered or stolen or more probably.. cast hybrid, moulds reversed..

 
Lx

[basemetal]

Two stolen obverse dies (apparently not worn in this case) used as an opputunistic forgery?
As I've said before the average ancient was more concerned with metal content than the images. Even if suspicious, a coin in hand waiting to be spent.......

[Goodies]

Then we agree this is most probably cast ? that is ancient cast ?

 
Lx