Pupienus/Liberalitas sestertius, condemned by David Sear

[TIF]

This coin was presented by a member of another forum.  The general feeling of that forum's members was that the coin was probably authentic.  The poster had doubts and had several others in question and sent a batch to David Sear.   This Pupienus was condemned. 

RÖMISCHE MÜNZEN
MÜNZEN DER RÖMISCHEN KAISERZEIT
Pupienus, 238
Æ-Sesterz, Rom; 19,74 g. Drapierte Büste r. mit Lorbeerkranz//Liberalitas steht l. mit Abacus und Füllhorn. BMC 10; Coh. 15; RIC 14.
Braune Patina, Felder geglättet, sehr schön/fast sehr schön

From the Sear Forgery Report: "This is a modern (19th/20th century) cast forgery of a Sestertius of Pupienus, co-emperor with Balbinus (April-July AD 238). The types and inscriptions lack the sharpness in definition that one would expect to see on a struck piece (note especially the weakness of the abacus held by Liberalitas) and the patination appears to have been artificially applied. Also, the apparent double-striking visible on the S-C in the reverse field is wholly unconvincing."

It has been added to the Fakes gallery.

[djmacdo]

This coin is a good lesson to me.  I would have glanced at it and thought it OK, though I would have noted the apparent smoothing on the reverse. 

[Joe Sermarini]

You just cannot condemn many good casts from a photo.

[curtislclay]

Possibly the original from which the other example was cast, as pointed out by Andicz in Numismatikforum:

[Akropolis]

Good eye, Curtis!
PeteB

[Callimachus]

Quote from the Sear Forgery Report: "Also, the apparent double-striking visible on the S-C in the reverse field is wholly unconvincing."

The double strike in the S-C is also on the genuine coin. What makes it "wholly unconvincing" on one coin, but apparently not the other?

[curtislclay]

David Sear is mistaken: there is nothing odd or unconvincing about the doublestriking of the S - C on the reverse of the two coins, except for the absolute identity of the doublestriking on two different pieces, which is a strong indication that they both represent one and the same original.

However because of the minor differences between the two coins in their centering and some details (Liberalitas' coin counter on rev., for example), I would not entirely exclude the possibility that they are both struck originals, which by a fluke were doublestruck in the same way on the S - C. Striking coins was after all repetitive work, which might by chance sometimes produce very similar die shifts.

[Joe Sermarini]

...However because of the minor differences between the two coins in their centering and some details (Liberalitas' coin counter on rev., for example), I would not entirely exclude the possibility that they are both struck originals, which by a fluke were doublestruck in the same way on the S - C. Striking coins was after all repetitive work, which might by chance sometimes produce very similar die shifts.

I think that is extremely unlikely.  I would not be greatly surprised to learn they are both cast.  I would be extremely surprised to learn they are both genuine.

[Hydatius]

I don't understand how just the 'S C' could be double struck. Either the whole die moves or it doesn't. Nothing around or between those letters is double struck. You would have to hypothesize that for some reason the die was more concave right at the those two letters only and so when the coin was struck the second time, the remains of the first strike were obliterated everywhere except around those two letters.
  Richard

[Joe Sermarini]

I don't understand how just the 'S C' could be double struck. Either the whole die moves or it doesn't. Nothing around or between those letters is double struck. You would have to hypothesize that for some reason the die was more concave right at the those two letters only and so when the coin was struck the second time, the remains of the first strike were obliterated everywhere except around those two letters.
  Richard

I know that seems logical, but after looking at many many double-struck coins, I have come to accept that somehow some parts can be double struck and other parts not, in ways that seem impossible.

Even if both of the coins here are cast fakes, they would still copy a genuine original. 

[Mark Fox]

Dear Board,

The shape of the flans are distinctly different, the centering is also not the same (as pointed out by Curtis), the flattened part of the legend behind Pupienus' head on the suspected cast does not match what we see on the suspected original, and there is no observable seam on the former coin (in the photos), in addition to other inconsistencies between the two coins.  The condemned coin may still in fact be a cast and the other an original, but there is certainly room for doubt now.  I have a hard time seeing the suspected original as being the seed coin, for instance.   


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

[Hydatius]

I know that seems logical, but after looking at many many double-struck coins, I have come to accept that somehow some parts can be double struck and other parts not, in ways that seem impossible.

Even if both of the coins here are cast fakes, they would still copy a genuine original. 

Could it just be re-engraving? I've seen examples of re-engraving on authentic coins that look like that.
  Richard

[Joe Sermarini]

No.