Otacilia Sestertius - patina

[Numerianus]

I am quite happy to get this  coin:

Otacilia Severa AE sestertius.
Obverse: MARCIA OTACIL SEVERA AVG, diademed draped bust right.
Reverse:  PVDICITIA AVG, Pudicitia seated left, hand raised to face, holding scepter, SC in exergue.

RIC 209a, Cohen 55.

It is very common. However, the authors of Cohen (Feuardent brothers) note that an example of
this type with a beautiful mblue patina was sold in Paris public auction  in 1885 for 350 FF.

As for my example, it has a strange bicolor patina.  I wonder wether  it is repatinated or not.   

[virtvsprobi]

Today Cohen is Rollin' in his grave. The Feauardents (and M. Rollin) were Cohen's publishers. They may have appended the later editions, but this still doesn't make them "Authors of Cohen". Sorry Numerianus, I have to stand up for ol' Henry.

As for multicolor patination, this does happen naturally and this piece does not look as though it had been artificially "enhanced".

G/<

[Numerianus]

"Dans le Cohen, les auteurs (Feauardents freres) signalaient en 1885
qu'un sesterce d'Otacilia Severa de ce type, avec une magnifique
patine bleue, avait ete adjuge 350 francs d'or a Paris, dans une vente
publique"
    Les Monnaies Romaines. Laurent  Schmitt, Michel Prieur.
    Edition Les Cheveau-legers, 2004, p. 444. 

Any comments? 

[curtislclay]

Schmitt and Prieur are wrong.
First, Cohen died in 1880, so only actually prepared vol. 1 of his second edition.  However, the second edition was just a rearrangement, with corrections and additions, of the first edition.  Cohen continued to be regarded and specified as its author.  Every title page says "par Henry Cohen", "by Henry Cohen".  Rollin and Feuardent, in vol. 2, the first volume they edited, refer to themselves as éditeurs, editors, not as authors.
Second, the note on the 350 franc price attained by a sest. of Otacilia Severa is not an addition to the text by Rollin and Feuardent, but is already present in the first edition publ. in 1860, no. 59, note 1.  Cohen there specifies that the sale occurred in 1856; this date was omitted in the second edition.

[virtvsprobi]

I've never seen the book by Schmitt & Prieur, but I have Cohen on my shelves, and was slightly surprised to see his authorship usurped.

Cheers,

G/<

[Numerianus]

Curtis, thanks  a lot. To be honest, I was also a bit surprised by the  sentence
in Schmitt  and Prieur and was waiting for your comment.  It is quite  interesting
that the date was omitting in the second edition. So, one should dig deeper.