Silver Campgate - Ancient or modern-ish fake?

[Jschulze]

Hi all,
Well... I thought I was buying a ratty, dirty Campgate with doors from bad seller photos off of a notorious auction site. I admit, I was blinded by the doors...

Anyway, what arrived was this... It appears to be silver (not magnetic, feel, weight) and looks cast although any trace of a seam appears to be worn as, if it weren't for the porous look, the edges look surprisingly normal.

It is silver all the way through as there are a couple areas on the edges that are broken away showing silver throughout.

The wear and encrustations look honest and very old (not machined). Anyway... What is this? I'm assuming it's a modern-ish fake... but could it be an ancient cast fake?

Either way... It's a curiosity. It cost me less than a cheap frozen pizza so, although probably worthless... I like it.  

Constantius II  
FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C  
LDC left  
VIRTVS-CAESS  
S - F   / ARLQ  
Arles   RIC VII Arles 316
2.65 grams

I also posted on Victor's excellent Late Roman Bronze Coin Forum, below is his response and his photo of his own ancient silver counterfeit.

"If the coin is ancient, and it looks like it is, why cast in the wrong metal? I have had an FTR (see picture below) that looked silver and seen other LRB's that looked silver. I wrote a little bit about this on my metallurgy page--

"There are other ways a coin could have a silvery surface. Corrosion may also promote a silvery surface on a coin. Lead corrodes very easily, and as it is displaced, silver can be deposited on the surface. Various  methods in the cleaning process can also give a coin a silvery appearance, such as heating a coin or even washing a coin. Lead can  be removed by prolonged washing, leaving more silver on the surface"

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/metallurgy/

Thank you for your opinions!

Note/edit: in my original cut and paste of Victor's quote, somehow the "IF" at the beginning was cut off. My edit placed this important word back, correcting the quote.

Josh

[areich]

What's the reason for believing the FTR? Both look like modern fakes to me and from the pictures I wouldn't necessarily call them silver but rather 'white metal'. I can't really see the encrustation on your coin very well but while it doesn't look artificial, I'm not sure how long it would really take for corrosion to appear, either naturally or helped along in some way. Over the years, I've seen lots of single fakes of Late Roman, in all kinds of metal and done with apparrently different techniques.

Especially with the FTR, I don't see a reason to believe it's not a cheap modern fake.

[Joe Sermarini]

I agree with Andreas. I think they are both modern cast fakes.

[Jschulze]

Thank you for your opinions.

I probably shouldn't have included the other photo without the opportunity for further context, as they have no relation other than being examples of oddball imitations of late bronzes. I included the photo because I posted in another forum first and, wanting other opinions, I was attempting to be be "complete" in explaining what I'd learned.

Also I feel, in my enthusiasm, I may have forwarded a quick response and photo that would have been presented differently and with more information by the author, if it were to be evaluated beyond being a similar curious example. Maybe I could suggest it be deleted as it seems to have distracted from the original question.

This is my mistake, I apologize.

There is no question about the coin being a cast fake. It may be white metal but seems to be silver in-hand, how can you tell for sure?
The look, feel, wear and encrustations are just pretty convincing that whatever it is... it's old. My wishful thinking wants it to be an ancient cast fake but you're right... it's just as likely modern... I'm just curious in the opinions of those who have seen many more coins than I have.

Thanks again.

Josh