Help with Attribution of Severus Alexander Coin

[Britannicus]

Dear Group,

I just recently posted a photo of a questionable Julia Paula coin and received a speedy determination that it is a modern forgery!

I own another coin that I am pretty certain is actually ancient; however this appears to me to be a base metal or AE denarius with remnants of plating. It is hard to tell in the photo, but with magnification in hand the remaining silvering is raised above the underlying darker metal.

Could this be an ancient forgery, or a limes denarius with plating, or some other kind or irregular issue?

I have attempted to attribute it as follows:

Severus Alexander (as Augustus); 222–35 CE. Æ denarius (plated), Eastern mint, struck 222 CE; 2.73g. cf. BMCRE 1026 note (no cuirass nor star), cf. RIC 264 (no cuirass), cf. RSC 202 (no cuirass nor star). Obv: IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG; laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right. Rev: P M TR P COS; Fortuna standing front, head left, holding rudder on globe and cornucopia; star in field left. A note with RSC 202 states that “RIC 264 gives the same piece, but with star, as in B.M. and pl. 4, 18, but the piece illustrated is R.I.C. 267 (see our 223a), so RIC 264 may not exist.” However, the present coin seems to be an unrecognized variant of RIC 264, with cuirass, unlisted in the major catalogs.

I appreciate any advice on this coin.

Mike

[Pscipio]

It does look like a fourré, a plated forgery. Acsearch gives at least two official denarii in good silver that also have a cuirassed bust (with and without star):

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1334800
http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10287

Also, these small shoulder flaps tend to be overlooked by many cataloguers.

Lars

[okidoki]

to explain.

you coin is ancient

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=fouree

[Britannicus]

Dear Lars and Okidoki,

Thank you for the information. At least I have the attribution correct, aside from the fact that it's a fouree!

The style looks official to me. The definition of fouree at the link provided doesn't discuss how they're produced. Do you think it was struck from official dies, or perhaps cast from an existing coin? Based on the amount of detail still visible, my guess is that is was struck.

Many thanks for your assistance.
Mike

[Jay GT4]

These weren't very pure silver to begin with.  In hand you'd be able to tell more easily if it was a fouree or just a corroded silver coin.

[Britannicus]

These weren't very pure silver to begin with.  In hand you'd be able to tell more easily if it was a fouree or just a corroded silver coin.

Dear Jay,

Thank you for your input. As I mentioned in my initial post, an in-hand study of this particular coin reveals very obviously that it has been silver plated. Remnants of silver plating can be seen adhering to the underlying base metal.

So I don't think it's just a corroded silver coin. During the era during which this coin was produced and earlier, the Roman Mint did not use a plating process as a standard practice to disguise the silver content of the coins. Generally there was a gradual decrease in silver content as one goes deeper into the coin, with the least silver purity occurring internally at the center. So there would not be a layer of plating.

Prof. Kevin Butcher from the University of Warwick (UK) offers a very clear explanation of this process as it was perfected by the Roman Mint. It involves chemically leaching the base metal from the exterior of the coin so that it appears to be pure silver. It's a fascinating video; here's the link:

"Secrets of the Roman Mint- Professor Kevin Butcher" https://youtu.be/6WE7eGNOU5I

However, this particular coin does seem to have originated from an Eastern mint, usually identified as having been located at Alexandria; perhaps mint workers there had not mastered the process of chemical leaching as at the Roman Mint and instead resorted to plating on occasion?

Mike

[Callimachus]

". . . this particular coin does seem to have originated from an Eastern mint, usually identified as having been located at Alexandria. . ."

Antioch, not Alexandria.

[PeterD]

A fouree was made by wrapping a base metal flan in silver foil and then striking it in the normal way. So surviving fourees generally look like good silver, except where the underlying base metal has corroded and pushed its way through or where there is a crack in the silver plating. An example is this fouree of Severus Alexander.

Official coins at this time were only 20-35% silver and that not tightly controlled. Possibly the coin above contained rather less silver than most. Probably the enhanced silver surface has corroded in the ground.

[Britannicus]

Official coins at this time were only 20-35% silver and that not tightly controlled. Possibly the coin above contained rather less silver than most. Probably the enhanced silver surface has corroded in the ground.

Thank you for your reply, Peter,

If the coin is official with a low silver content as you suggest, then it is quite a rare variant. It is the only example of the type (cf. RIC 264) that I have been able to find with this particular combination of obverse legend, cuirassed bust, and star.  

So even though it is not a very handsome coin, for me it is still an exciting find!  

Mike

[Pscipio]

It looks plated and thus not official. If my memory serves me right, Severus' Denarii still contained around 50 % silver and there is no way, I think, a solid official coin could wind up looking like yours. Also, while the style is quite neat, it is clearly different from official issues.

Lars

[Callimachus]

You have a very nice interesting coin here.  The style is obviously that of Antioch. 

You comment on the rarity of the coin:
"If the coin is official with a low silver content as you suggest, then it is quite a rare variant. It is the only example of the type (cf. RIC 264) that I have been able to find with this particular combination of obverse legend, cuirassed bust, and star. "

RIC (page 90 of Volume IV part 2) rates #264 as C -- which stands for Common. That means there were enough of them existing in the pre-WWII collections studied to rate it as a C.  That said, I have not ever seen one with the long obverse legend either.  In my collection I have RIC 263 (with the shorter legend) but not RIC 264.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-90085

[Britannicus]

". . . this particular coin does seem to have originated from an Eastern mint, usually identified as having been located at Alexandria. . ."

Antioch, not Alexandria.

Sorry. yes, I meant to write Antioch! Thanks for catching that.

[Britannicus]

It looks plated and thus not official. If my memory serves me right, Severus' Denarii still contained around 50 % silver and there is no way, I think, a solid official coin could wind up looking like yours. Also, while the style is quite neat, it is clearly different from official issues.

Lars

Lars, I tend to agree with you. Would that make it a fouree? That is what I think it is, but possibly made from official dies.

RIC (page 90 of Volume IV part 2) rates #264 as C -- which stands for Common. That means there were enough of them existing in the pre-WWII collections studied to rate it as a C.  That said, I have not ever seen one with the long obverse legend either.  In my collection I have RIC 263 (with the shorter legend) but not RIC 264.

Callimachus,

Thanks for sharing the image of your coin. Very nice example! I do understand that RIC rarity ratings are extrapolated from the sources you mention; nonetheless, sometimes they seem to be quite out of step with the availability of material in today's marketplace. For the Severan Era I place more weight on Reka Devnia numbers, which in my experience have tended to be a somewhat more reliable gauge of relative rarity.

Also, a note with RSC 202 states that “RIC 264 gives the same piece, but with star, as in B.M. and pl. 4, 18, but the piece illustrated is R.I.C. 267 (see our 223a), so RIC 264 may not exist.” A check of the RIC volume confirms that the illustration for 264 is indeed a mismatch for the description of it.

So my coin is evidence that at least a fouree of the variety as described by RIC 264 does exist.

[Callimachus]

The RIC treatment of Severus Alexander's Antioch coins is really quite bad.