FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
-
Hello friends,
I'd like to Id this coin please.
Details by pics : mm 22 and g. 2,18
Thanks for your help
(https://i.ibb.co/hy4ys2F/IMG-20220705-145821.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QfTf9Yv)
(https://i.ibb.co/hYBTMCF/IMG-20220705-145853.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fDkTSQd)
(https://i.ibb.co/thtyVR7/IMG-20220705-150251.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BPx80kX)
(https://i.ibb.co/y5Fhcc3/IMG-20220705-151039.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1KGsttS)
-
Looks like a barbarous radiate imitative, with bungled legend and a flipped strike so the obverse (radiate head) and reverse (standing figure) each appear on both sides.
Very neat.
SC
-
Looks like a barbarous radiate imitative, with bungled legend and a flipped strike so the obverse (radiate head) and reverse (standing figure) each appear on both sides.
Very neat.
SC
Thanks, do you mean something near to Tetricus I or II? More or less where you'll set the date? Thanks
-
Looks like a barbarous radiate imitative, with bungled legend and a flipped strike so the obverse (radiate head) and reverse (standing figure) each appear on both sides.
Very neat.
SC
I was noticing that there is written Tacitus...
Maybe a barbarian imitative coin of Tacitus?
-
Tetricus I rather than Tacitus
-
Tetricus I rather than Tacitus
Excuse me Where do you read Tetricus?
I clearly read Tacitus
(https://i.ibb.co/gDpDSMB/IMG-20220706-143404.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FBMB5bj)
-
I guess it could be tacitus, but the portrait and style are typical of ancient imitations of Tetricus. Legends on "barbaous" coins are often blundered.
-
Ahh got it now. Thanks for the explanation. +++
-
I thin what you are reading as a C is actually and :Greek_epsilon:
-
Important ! Attention I had not noticed: it seems to me that the coin, after having been minted for the first time, instead of being removed from the minting, has "gone around in the air" and returned to its place, receiving a second imprint of D and of R, but on the other side. The same standing figure, holding a scepter (?) Is visible on both sides, it seems that both have been beaten by an obverse minting and a reverse minting. Perhaps as assumed the coin has rebounded.
It appears to be a brockage.
Send the explanatory images and the link to a coin of the same type https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1703851
(https://i.ibb.co/GsQB5SP/E354520-D-3-B02-4-ECC-AC16-200312-BC77-FE-jpeg-ebd4e544b1c46318ea030e4b78d4c436.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/CVn5fgW/E0194239-2308-4-F98-A68-B-515-AA3-F9-AA0-C-jpeg-685407bc476e4864581af0b1bcb4721a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vLJxSpD)
(https://i.ibb.co/1KrrCRv/3613-EF5-A-76-D9-4532-8-ADF-7884130-F9-C18-jpeg-e979b6e9a4ef4e9563fca5507963dc07.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xG11nzC)
-
Important ! Attention I had not noticed before: next an other forum they let me notice that the coin, after having been minted for the first time, instead of being removed from the minting, has "gone around in the air" and returned to its place, receiving a second imprint of D and of R, but on the other side. The same standing figure, holding a scepter (?) Is visible on both sides, it seems that both have been beaten by an obverse minting and a reverse minting. Perhaps as assumed the coin has rebounded.
A double beating, and between the two beats the coin turned. Practically the coin has been minted twice, and has the right and reverse sides on both sides.
Definitely very original ... also because the imitatives of Tacitus are quite rare.
I Send the explanatory images and the link to a coin of the same type https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1703851
(https://i.ibb.co/GsQB5SP/E354520-D-3-B02-4-ECC-AC16-200312-BC77-FE-jpeg-ebd4e544b1c46318ea030e4b78d4c436.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/CVn5fgW/E0194239-2308-4-F98-A68-B-515-AA3-F9-AA0-C-jpeg-685407bc476e4864581af0b1bcb4721a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vLJxSpD)
(https://i.ibb.co/1KrrCRv/3613-EF5-A-76-D9-4532-8-ADF-7884130-F9-C18-jpeg-e979b6e9a4ef4e9563fca5507963dc07.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xG11nzC)
-
Even as an imitation... It does not look like Tacitus... I agree it looks like an imitation of Tetricus... If it is an imitation of Tacitus, it is the worst I have ever seen, even being a double strike.
-
If it were a brockage, it would be incuse--but this seems to be relief, so a flip over double strike.
-
Even as an imitation... It does not look like Tacitus... I agree it looks like an imitation of Tetricus... If it is an imitation of Tacitus, it is the worst I have ever seen, even being a double strike.
What can I say, if the coin says Tacitus I should follow the coin, that knows better than me who is representing
-
Even as an imitation... It does not look like Tacitus... I agree it looks like an imitation of Tetricus... If it is an imitation of Tacitus, it is the worst I have ever seen, even being a double strike.
What can I say, if the coin says Tacitus I should follow the coin, that knows better than me who is representing
No no, I'm not saying that is a brockage but a double beat both obv. and rev.
-
Again, I thin what you are reading as a C is an e.
-
I know what you said before, but in that case it'll become Taeitus .
No sense. That's why everyone, even Next other forums, is agree for Tacitus
-
If you spend some time searching you will see that imitative coins of Tacitus are very rare and look totally different.
This is a clearly an imitative (a "barbarous radiate") from same period as the Tetricii imitations. I, and I am sure many others here on the forum, have literally looked at thousands of such coins. The style of both obverse and the reverse figure (both of which, as I initially pointed out, appear on both sides due to the flipped strike) are absolutely in line with Tetricii imitations and not at all in line with Tacitus-era imitations.
The actual legend is entirely irrelevant as Tetricii imitations appear with everything ranging from near perfect inscriptions to entirely illegible squiggles. Yours is in the middle with legible letters that don't make entire sense.
There is, in fact, a long history of people, dating back to the 18th century, who believed that they had discovered unknown new Emperors because they read blundered legends on Tetricii era imitations as new names before it was recognized that the legends were often simply blundered, or made by illiterate forgers.
SC
-
If you spend some time searching you will see that imitative coins of Tacitus are very rare and look totally different.
This is a clearly an imitative (a "barbarous radiate") from same period as the Tetricii imitations. I, and I am sure many others here on the forum, have literally looked at thousands of such coins. The style of both obverse and the reverse figure (both of which, as I initially pointed out, appear on both sides due to the flipped strike) are absolutely in line with Tetricii imitations and not at all in line with Tacitus-era imitations.
The actual legend is entirely irrelevant as Tetricii imitations appear with everything ranging from near perfect inscriptions to entirely illegible squiggles. Yours is in the middle with legible letters that don't make entire sense.
There is, in fact, a long history of people, dating back to the 18th century, who believed that they had discovered unknown new Emperors because they read blundered legends on Tetricii era imitations as new names before it was recognized that the legends were often simply blundered, or made by illiterate forgers.
SC
I really appreciate your explanation, thanks a lot. +++
Btw click this link please, they sold as Tacitus
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1703851
-
A very poor description in my opinion. The idea that these coins were made until the 5th century has been completely discredited. They are now known to be roughly contemporary with the types they imitated, though, because of their ubiquity and their weight some of them did circulated mixed in with other old coins in 4th and some 5th century hoards.
SC
-
A very poor description in my opinion. The idea that these coins were made until the 5th century has been completely discredited. They are now known to be roughly contemporary with the types they imitated, though, because of their ubiquity and their weight some of them did circulated mixed in with other old coins in 4th and some 5th century hoards.
SC
Thanks, then Which century will you attribuite?
-
Clearly it says TACITVS. I don't see an E and I do see a TACITVS. That it does not match the style of some other clearly unrelated Tacitus imitatives by some less prolific maker is completely irrelevant. That some barbarian workshop continued to use the same fabric, portrait, etc. as they did for Tetricus imitatives does not make this a Tetricus imitative. Would you really date this to any time before Tacitus came to power? Do you think the engraver, during the rule of Tetricus, randomly guessed the name of a future emperor? I think not. Maybe they did not strike these for 100 years but I think this is solid evidence that the makers of Tetricus barbaric imitatives continued to strike similar barbaric imitatives until at least 276 A.D.
-
Clearly it says TACITVS. I don't see an E and I do see a TACITVS. That it does not match the style of some other clearly unrelated Tacitus imitatives by some less prolific maker is completely irrelevant. That some barbarian workshop continued to use the same fabric, portrait, etc. as they did for Tetricus imitatives does not make this a Tetricus imitative. Would you really date this to any time before Tacitus came to power? Do you think the engraver, during the rule of Tetricus, randomly guessed the name of a future emperor? I think not. Maybe they did not strike these for 100 years but I think this is solid evidence that the makers of Tetricus barbaric imitatives continued to strike similar barbaric imitatives until at least 276 A.D.
+++ +++ +++
finally :-) this is absolutely the best answer I ever wished to receive, even because it seems that my words were not enough to explain what I meant, and you have fully made the concept and the reality of this identification understood, which I will therefore catalog as a barbaric imitative of Tacitus. Thank you very much for your reply and for your availability.
+++ +++ +++
Ancient and Medieval Coin Identification Help => Topic started by: Gianluca G on July 05, 2022, 09:12:38 am