Diocletian aureus

[berserkrro]

Hello all, please share with me your opinion about this Doicletian aureus (not mine). I cannot find it in RIC anyway, seems to be from the third issue (Antioch). Thanks!

[Rich Beale]

Looks very suspect to me. The material looks terrible.. possibly a cast.

[berserkrro]

The picture is not so good, but anyway I don't think is cast. But thank you for the opinion! Some other?

[Joe Sermarini]

It does not look cast but possibly pressed.

[Hydatius]

You're right about RIC. By the time Diocletian was consul for the seventh time (299), the mint mark had changed from SMA. As well the DIOCLETIANVS AVGVSTVS legend is split.  Here's the only example from CoinArchives (RIC 6 Antioch 22):

Richard

[berserkrro]

Thank you all. So from this picture, we cannot say that's a fake for sure. The type is rare, and it seems that nobody has seen yet something close. Anyway, if some other opinions will show up, I'll be glad to hear them.

[bpmurphy]

Is it CONSVL IIII or CONSVL VII?

IIII would be RIC V 307.

Either way it looks fake in the photo.

Barry Murphy

[Hydatius]

Is it CONSVL IIII or CONSVL VII?
IIII would be RIC V 307.
Either way it looks fake in the photo.
Barry Murphy

Ahh, yes!  I think you're right.  That would explain the earlier style of mint mark and the unbroken legend. I don't have RIC 5 (6-10 only), so I didn't notice it.  And it does look fake.

Richard

[berserkrro]

Thank you! It's IIII, after some image processing (is the only picture I have) I realised that it should be IIII. My opinion is 2/2-1/3 false/genuine. Anyway I would'nt buy it based on that picture, and according to some other facts, I would'nt buy from that dealer (is a romanian and he's offers are only for Romania according to our laws).