Ragulkpm

On 3/17/2022 at 7:55 PM, JKK said:

I see what you're saying, but I don't see any of the telltales I would expect from an overstruck coin. Color doesn't look right either. If the seller has mixed reviews that'd be about the end of it for me. I'll overlook an occasional neg as "everyone can run into a lunatic customer" but "mixed reviews" to me says "forget it."

On 3/18/2022 at 11:36 AM, Just Bob said:

Thank you for the confirmation pictures. Your coin is a fake.

On 3/17/2022 at 7:55 PM, JKK said:

I see what you're saying, but I don't see any of the telltales I would expect from an overstruck coin. Color doesn't look right either. If the seller has mixed reviews that'd be about the end of it for me. I'll overlook an occasional neg as "everyone can run into a lunatic customer" but "mixed reviews" to me says "forget it."

On 3/17/2022 at 6:52 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

If the coin was authentic possibly, but I see no other design elements of an 8 reales anywhere on the coin and when compared to other known examples it just doesn't stack up in my book. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have taken a flyer on this coin.  Not based on those images at any rate.

Thanks everyone. Checked with ebay and I am getting refund for this. I have come across fake ancient European coins but I didn't expect a fake Indian coin honestly  

On 3/18/2022 at 9:25 AM, RWB said:

[PS: That's really "Ant Man" on the obverse.]

Sorry I don't understand, what does it mean? thanks.

On 3/17/2022 at 8:55 PM, Just Bob said:

What does the edge of your coin look like?

There is a small pattern on the rim but nothing on the edge, attached the photos..

On 3/17/2022 at 3:21 AM, JKK said:

Why do you believe that it was overstruck on a Spanish coin? I am not aware of any good reason to believe that, looking at the piece. Overstrikes normally carry at least some vestige of the previous design.

that's what it says on Numista (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces25912.html) under the comments and also in other websites where I checked so for.

On 3/17/2022 at 7:29 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Questionable authenticity IMO, I think counterfeit. At any rate, I see no signs of this being overstruck. I'd return this turd.

If you see the area over the star of the coin (in 2nd photo), there is a slight overlap - so I thought is a restruck and genuine.  Is that not how a restruck coin is? If I send to grading, will the confirm if it is genuine or not?

Thanks in advance!

This coin is struck on Spanish reales + bought this coin on ebay and seller had mixed reviews so I am not sure.

Weight of the coin matches numista.com - https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces25912.html

1. Does anyone has any idea on coins struck on some other coins?
2. If I am sending for grading, do they certify it as genuine & would it be worth it?

Thanks in advance!

6 hours ago, JKK said:

I mean that your coin corresponds most closely to the Sear (Volume I) catalog of Roman coins, #1857. It is no longer an unattributed coin. If you want to read up on it, you can search for Sear 1857 or S-1857, and you might find examples for sale that would help you determine market value. It is the key bit of information you most needed, the hardest one to supply you with.

6 hours ago, GBrad said:

An attribution (in my best terminology and explanation) is a number assigned to any specific coin that defines certain aspects or characteristics of that individual coin in question. A lot of coins, especially those dating back to this time frame, have slightly different nuances, details, devices, something a little off here, something a little off there, etc (they didn't quite have CNC machines and computer automated drawings back in B.C. and all the dies were completely handmade)...... you get my point.  So when a coin is attributed it is given a specific label, number, etc.... so that collectors can reference a particular attribution, in relation to their coin, in order to compare it to.  Please correct me if I am wrong in saying this.  Even modern day coinage is still attributed for things such as varieties and errors.  

Thank you so much for explaining in detail. Like I said, I am quiet new. I am glad I posted my question in this forum, you have provided me with lots of information and resource to learn. Appreciate your help!

1 hour ago, JKK said:

By the way, your attribution is S-1857, slight variant in obverse legend.

Sorry, I don't understand this. what do you mean "attribution is S-1857"?

6 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

It has managed to survive just fine since the Christian era began, going on some 2,000 years.  I would leave it as is.

Thanks for your response!

7 hours ago, JKK said:

It is better not to clean it. Enough damage has already been done.

Thanks for your response JKK! 

2 hours ago, JKK said:

I do not see any reason to believe it not genuine. Looks like a rough cleaning, but that is often the only way to de-crudulate these. An as, I reckon.

Thanks, here is the closest match I found online if you would like to know more -https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18204656

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).cl.95

Apparently it is a bronze coin, is it better to clean this with acetone or any suggestions on cleaning?

Hi all,  I am quiet new to ancient coin collection. Found this coin in my local pawn shop.

I want to be make sure if I am buying an original and I couldn't confirm based on my research. Please advise or if you could share any link that would be helpful. Thanks in advance.