Fake or original- Ancient Roman Imperial Claudius Caesar 0

[Ragulkpm]

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.

 

[JKK]

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.

[Ragulkpm]

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?

[JKK]

1 hour ago, Ragulkpm said:

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?

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

[Henri Charriere]

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

[Ragulkpm]

7 hours ago, JKK said:

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

Thanks for your response JKK! 

[Ragulkpm]

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!

[JKK]

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

[GBrad]

56 minutes ago, JKK said:

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

Hey JKK. As with the OP, I too am also trying to learn more about ancients as they have sparked my interest lately.  Always been a Linc error and variety fanatic myself.  What online sources would you, or any of you ancient professionals, recommend to use to attribute ancient coins? I know both the OP and myself would appreciate any input.  I did notice the exact same variation you speak of which threw up a red flag on this one for me but I was not able to find the attribution listing you mentioned, S-1857, to compare the OP's coin to.  Seems like these coins are all over the map when it comes to variations, weight, etc.....Thanks for any pointers or advice on links or reliable websites.  

[JKK]

23 minutes ago, GBrad said:

Hey JKK. As with the OP, I too am also trying to learn more about ancients as they have sparked my interest lately.  Always been a Linc error and variety fanatic myself.  What online sources would you, or any of you ancient professionals, recommend to use to attribute ancient coins? I know both the OP and myself would appreciate any input.  I did notice the exact same variation you speak of which threw up a red flag on this one for me but I was not able to find the attribution listing you mentioned, S-1857, to compare the OP's coin to.  Seems like these coins are all over the map when it comes to variations, weight, etc.....Thanks for any pointers or advice on links or reliable websites.  

I usually use Wildwinds online, but I have the Sear volumes and Aorta and those are more comprehensive. If you want to get anywhere with Roman coinage up to the Byzantine era, Aorta (or ERIC II) is the fast track. Sear also has RIC and other catalog numbers. I assume by variation you mean the obverse legend. The big tell here is the sort of dewlap on the neck, which is most uncommon, and immediately separates it from the more common portraits. As for Greek, Wildwinds can help with that a lot (it will of course be assumed you read the Greek alphabet). For Mauryan or Kushan stuff, there's zeno.ru.

You asked about online, and online can help, but it will only take you so far. The problem with online is what you do not find there. Even so, it's a great shortcut. Feed the legend to Wildwinds, see what comes up...and if they have your exact coin, you're in business. If not, you're left with a slight discrepancy. That happens with Aorta as well--just not very often (like 2% in my experience). In the end, if it's a serious interest and you want to dive deeper than the shallow end, it'll mean paper books. And most of them are out of print, some are very rare, and even those are on some level incomplete. If you get into the Islamic world it'll make the ancient world look somewhat simplistic (starting with you'd need to learn the Arabic alphabet and to recognize various scripts).

As for Roman coins, at least from the Imperial era, in essence--besides weight and composition--there are five markers, BORTE: bust, obverse legend, reverse legend, type (reverse image), and exergue (mint mark area below reverse image, also usually encompassing field marks/oficinae). For most Roman imperial coins, it's a process of taking what is visible and using that to narrow the coin down to a few possibilities, then focusing on the missing data. For example, is that a delta or an A in the left field (of some imaginary coin)? Well, if Aorta shows no coin with matching legends that has an A in the left field, but does show one with a delta, you begin to lean toward the delta option.

It is a forensic process and it takes time and logic. And good eyes, since the print in Aorta is dinky tiny, four centuries of prolific coinage crammed into about 1000 pages of small paperback book. I bet some folks get ERIC II just because the print is larger (it's the size of a dictionary). People sometimes show me a muddy, corroded Roman bronze and I offer them an attribution, and they act like I did witchcraft. Nah; just didn't depend exclusively on freebie sources. I paid to play.

Edited May 5, 2021 by JKK

[Ragulkpm]

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"?

[GBrad]

3 minutes ago, JKK said:

I usually use Wildwinds online, but I have the Sear volumes and Aorta and those are more comprehensive. If you want to get anywhere with Roman coinage up to the Byzantine era, Aorta (or ERIC II) is the fast track. Sear also has RIC and other catalog numbers. I assume by variation you mean the obverse legend. The big tell here is the sort of dewlap on the neck, which is most uncommon, and immediately separates it from the more common portraits. As for Greek, Wildwinds can help with that a lot (it will of course be assumed you read the Greek alphabet). For Mauryan or Kushan stuff, there's zeno.ru.

You asked about online, and online can help, but it will only take you so far. The problem with online is what you do not find there. Even so, it's a great shortcut. Feed the legend to Wildwinds, see what comes up...and if they have your exact coin, you're in business. If not, you're left with a slight discrepancy. That happens with Aorta as well--just not very often (like 2% in my experience). In the end, if it's a serious interest and you want to dive deeper than the shallow end, it'll mean paper books. And most of them are out of print, some are very rare, and even those are on some level incomplete. If you get into the Islamic world it'll make the ancient world look somewhat simplistic (starting with you'd need to learn the Arabic alphabet and to recognize various scripts).

As for Roman coins, at least from the Imperial era, in essence--besides weight and composition--there are five markers, BORTE: bust, obverse legend, reverse legend, type (reverse image), and exergue (mint mark area below reverse image, also usually encompassing field marks and oficinae). For most Roman imperial coins, it's a process of taking what is visible and using that to narrow the coin down to a few possibilities, then focusing on the missing data. For example, is that a delta or an A in the left field (of some imaginary coin)? Well, if Aorta shows no coin with matching legends that has an A in the left field, but does show one with a delta, you begin to lean toward the delta option.

It is a forensic process and it takes time and logic. And good eyes, since the print in Aorta is dinky tiny, four centuries of prolific coinage crammed into about 1000 pages of small paperback book. I bet some folks get ERIC II just because the print is larger (it's the size of a dictionary). People sometimes show me a muddy, corroded Roman bronze and I offer them an attribution, and they act like I did witchcraft. Nah; just didn't depend exclusively on freebie sources. I paid to play.

Ok..... I feel like I just received a PhD here in ancients......holy cow!!!  That is some absolutely excellent info JKK and thank you so very much for taking your time to compose this list of your knowledge.  Much appreciated and I'm going to somehow save and bookmark all of this.   

[GBrad]

3 minutes ago, Ragulkpm said:

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

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.  

[JKK]

11 minutes ago, Ragulkpm said:

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

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.

[GBrad]

1 minute 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.

Oh.. Sorry, thought you were asking what an attribution was..... Listen to JKK on this stuff!!!! (open mouth, insert foot....me that is..)

[JKK]

12 minutes ago, GBrad said:

Ok..... I feel like I just received a PhD here in ancients......holy cow!!!  That is some absolutely excellent info JKK and thank you so very much for taking your time to compose this list of your knowledge.  Much appreciated and I'm going to somehow save and bookmark all of this.   

One reason I am glad that I majored in ancient history, and took all those languages, and have spent all this time up to my nalgas in ancient coinage, is because of a thing I had heard from one of my old profs (Rodney Stark, sociology, formerly of UW, now at Baylor unless he's retired): of all the historical disciplines, antiquarians have a reputation for being the most helpful and forthcoming. We like being asked and we like to explain. My mentors in the area certainly upheld this reputation, and it falls to me to behave as though I deserved the help and its accompanying membership card. Go to any large coin show and look over the ancients vendors, and you will find at least one who is delighted to sit and talk with you for a long time about the coins on display. It's how we generally are. Oh, and if you think I'm deep, you should see our club's best ancients guy. He's one of my mentors, and his knowledge makes me look like a Total N00b.

[JKK]

3 minutes ago, GBrad said:

Oh.. Sorry, thought you were asking what an attribution was..... Listen to JKK on this stuff!!!! (open mouth, insert foot....me that is..)

No, you were correct. That might have been what he was asking, and your answer was spot on.

[Ragulkpm]

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!