Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet Challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins!!!

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop

Author Topic: First ancient rings  (Read 586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Basileus Nikephoros Antialcidas

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possi
First ancient rings
« on: April 13, 2021, 09:52:51 am »
Hello to everyone. I have been collecting ancient coins for a quite some time, but these are my first two ancient rings I buy, so I can say I am almost clueless on the subject. They are both bought through a strict and reputable platform, while the seller offers life time certificate of authenticity and provenance. The thing is that I, with my trained eyes on ancient coins, I see them perfectly right, with my latest though realization that the silver one that was offered to me as byzantine has the iconography from the late roman coins of Constantine with the two victories holding shield over altar. Could that mean that byzantine is a mistake and it should be considered late roman? Could a ring have iconography from a coin, or it could be considered iconography of that time that was applied to other things except coins, meaning something special for that period? And what is your overall opinion on both of them?
The rings description are: left - roman 2nd-3d century AD bronze ring with agate intaglio depicting pegasus, with some iron deposits.
right - Byzantine 10th-13th century silver ring, angels over altar holding shield.

Offline otlichnik

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: First ancient rings
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2021, 12:05:18 pm »
I know very little about intaglio rings.  Other might know more.  But the basic form/shape of the ring looks genuine.

The other ring I am far less certain about.  I have never seen a genuine Roman ring that imitates a coin design.  Personally I find it just a bit too convenient and would be rather concerned.  Especially as silver items are much easier to fake than bronze ones as even genuine silver items are almost always well cleaned with no real patina, corrosion or adhesions to aid in authentication.  So the newly made ones blend in easier.

(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Mayadigger

  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Romans, lock your wives way!
    • Noble Roman Coins
Re: First ancient rings
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2021, 06:13:26 pm »

Your ring on the left appears to be genuine...
The one right is bogus.


"Goodbye, Livia: never forget our marriage!"

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 10886
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
Re: First ancient rings
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2021, 06:59:36 pm »
I rarely sell ancient rings, primarily because they are challenging to authenticate and I have not taken the time to study them and learn them well. I cannot sell anything I am not confident is genuine. I recently turned down a ring consignment - the ring sold at auction a few weeks ago for about $18K (the consignor told me so).
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President


All coins are guaranteed for eternity