Constantius II Siliqua

[Vadim Ancient]

weight 2.17

Constantinople? Imitation or not?

[Adrianus]

From that photo impossible to say 
Can't say I like the looks of it but it may be OK. Take a better photo in natural light. What are the edges like? Looks from the image that you've supplied that it could be cast but I think we need better pictures to diagnose...
Regards,
Adrianus

[ionutbd]

From this picture it looks like a cast fake. Sorry

[Hydatius]

From this picture it looks like a cast fake. Sorry

I'm inclined to agree with the fake part, but I don't think it's a cast of a real coin.

Richard

[glebe]

Looks like this one (CNG 81-1141):

with some variations (notably the hair).

Ross G.

[Joe Sermarini]

The photo is distorted by compression effects.  I can't tell what the coin acutally looks like.

[Siliquae]

The two coins are coming from the same cast, and it's may be the same coins.
Official coin, for sure.

CONSTANCE II - CONSTANTINOPLE - RIC 104-4
Silique, 351-355, S
A/D N CONSTAN-TIVS P F AVG
Dominus Noster Constantius Pius Felix Augustus, Notre Seigneur Constance Pieux et Heureux Auguste
Buste à droite, diadémé (Perles), drapé et cuirassé.
R/VOTIS/XXX/MVLTIS/XXXX//C(PALME)?
Votis tricennalibus/Multis quadracennalibus, Vœux pour le trentième anniversaire de règne et plus pour les quarante à venir
Légende en 4 lignes dans une couronne de lauriers fermée.
Argent, RIC VIII 104(04), RSC 342

[glebe]

The CNG coin has a clean sharp reverse. On the other coin the reverse is covered with small dots.

Ross G.

[Siliquae]

And not the same weight.... if the mesurement (2.27) is ok.

But certainly the two same dies (observe and reverse).

Siliquae

[Joe Sermarini]

The CNG coin has a clean sharp reverse. On the other coin the reverse is covered with small dots.

Ross G.

The photo is distorted by compression effects.  We really don't know how it looks in hand.  It could be cast.  It could be OK.

[glebe]

The CNG coin has a clean sharp reverse. On the other coin the reverse is covered with small dots.

Ross G.

The photo is distorted by compression effects.  We really don't know how it looks in hand.  It could be cast.  It could be OK.

Digital "compression effects" can certainly distort an image, but can they add little casting style dots to an image? I'd like to see a demonstration of that.

Ross G.

[Joe Sermarini]

We once had a magnification feature in our catalog that created the same compression effects.  There were multiple erroneous discussions on CFDL about the cast coins in Forum's shop.  I do think it could be cast; however, I see nothing that is certain.   

To me, a more important issue than the authenticity of this coin is, when members want to ask about the authenticity of a coin on this board, they cannot post photos with strong compression effects. 

[glebe]

We once had a magnification feature in our catalog that created the same compression effects.  

"The same compression effects"? You mean the dots specifically? As I said I'd like to see that that.


Ross G.

[areich]

The point is that you can't use a photo that is so strongly compressed to say anything about the surface. The dots you see may be there or they may not.

[glebe]

How do we know it's "strongly compressed"?
Can you show me some images before compression without dots, and after compression with dots?

Ross G.

[Joe Sermarini]

I know it is strongly compressed because I have seen many images before compression and after compression.  I know what compression looks like.  No, I cannot show you images with "dots." What you see as dots could be casting pearls but they also could be anything.  Compression effects could turn a small lighter or darker spot into what looks like a dot.  Sorry, but I am not going to spend the time compressing photos until I get one that looks like it has "dots" on it. 

[areich]

It's immediately obvious to anyone with any kind of computer experience that the image in the first post has been very strongly compressed. Look at the file size alone! You can compress JPG images, sacrificing quality for reduced size. Take any image editing program and try for yourself. It doesn't make any sense at all to talk about fine detail seen in a picture such as this.

[glebe]

Hmmm. No point in pursuing this.

Ross G.

[Snegovik]

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Joe and Andreas mean reducing the file size by pixel averaging (save as smaller file in photoshop, etc.) while compressing in the language of computer folks means processing a file with algorithms that reduce its size while keeping the number of pixels the same (gzip, etc.). The result is obviously different.

[Vadim Ancient]

more high resolution pictures

weight 2.17 gr

[areich]

Here's an explanation of JPEG compression though it seems no one is much interested in one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG


The new photos are a little bit better (only because they are larger) but still, there is no reason to compress them this much. It's perfectly fine if a picture of this size takes up  200KB, even more. This is not 1995.