acsearch.info

Cookies must be activated for full functionality of this website.
Please follow the instructions on how to enable Cookies in your web browser.

Comments

  Sammler1A 16. July 2018, 15:50

Yes I agree.

The coin is clearly recutted !

  TIF 16. July 2018, 11:58

It does stick out like a sore thumb when scrolling through the other Eumenes tets, doesn't it? Here it is again from a 2012 Auctiones listing: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3582778
  CaptainMyCaptain 16. July 2018, 00:10

This coin I believe is 1729, given that the assayer is "N", and not "M" who was assayer in 1725. Also, wouldn't the 1725 read LUIS I vs Philip V? Records state that to be the case. 1725 is the only year we see LUIS I from Lima. I have never seen a coin reading Philip V for that year.
Anyway know if there are in fact 1725 issues of Philip V?
  joha2000 13. July 2018, 20:46

This coin illustrated in RPC online.
Ex Gorny & Mosch 220, 11/03/2014, lot 1506.
  tbardin 10. July 2018, 16:59

Probably a (very good) bimetallic fake. The copied reverse die can be distinguished in the lettering. All the original observe dies of this type have a gorgoneion, or part of it. Usually, modern fake medallions are monometallic ones. Also lighthweight for a full-preserved piece.
  IdesOfMarch 6. July 2018, 17:59

There is considerable re-engraving on this coin. Just to name a few: (1) Domitian's hair on the obverse has detail that doesn't exist on the original; (2) Domitian's ear on obverse has a line that isn't in the original; (3) Emperor's torso on reverse has a "six-pack" that is not on original; (4) Emperor's dress/skirt on reverse has vertical lines that are greatly enhanced (deepened) vs. original.

As a serious collector, I would not consider a coin that exhibits this amount of tooling.
  errataprobi 5. July 2018, 23:13

RIC 896, Cyzicus, p. 116. Absence of SIS in exergue, and presence of crossbeams in the chair, as well as stylistic features of the portrait firmly establish this as a coin of Cyzicus.
  errataprobi 5. July 2018, 21:20

RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
  errataprobi 5. July 2018, 21:09

RIC 594, as the titulature is IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, not IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG = RIC 593. Page 80.
  coinscollector 5. July 2018, 00:40

99% of elements are same. Some of "recutting tooling" might have been under old patina. After a close examination of both photos, THERE IS NO TOOLING. However there is smoothing only on reverse between 10 and 11 o'clock near emperor's staff. Smoothing is acceptable in numismatic. Other than that, you can see the same holes, cracks everywhere. Repatination is very common with bronze coins and most of the times would protect better the coin. If you like your coins raw don't clean them , simple as that. They would look dull full with dirt, but who cares.. it's your property anyway. Labeling "Riverine patina" that is my problem with this coin. For a rare coin, dealer must have done a research and should have offered more info about patina. I don't have a problem buying a coin repatinated, in this case they did a great job. I have a problem when this info is withheld from buyers.
  joha2000 4. July 2018, 23:35

This coin illustrated in Banti - Simonetti "Corpus Nummorum Romanorum" Volume XVII (No. 510). The Sir Charles Oman Collection was sold in Christies auction 02/07/1968. Coin offered afterwards by C. de Nicola in listino 4/1969 (n. 402).
  Okidoki 4. July 2018, 11:33

Smoothed and tooled
  errataprobi 1. July 2018, 17:26

RIC 890 of Cyzicus, p. 115.
  errataprobi 1. July 2018, 17:23

RIC 890 of Cyzicus, p. 115.

Same coin as Lanz 120 545: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=173555
  siliquae 29. June 2018, 09:14

Un faux moderne des ateliers "bulgares", dont le même coin de revers a été utilisé pour Gratien et Valens. Voir les fiches sur la base siliquae :
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00309.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/01289.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00092.htm
Siliquae
  siliquae 29. June 2018, 09:14

Un faux moderne des ateliers "bulgares", dont le même coin de revers a été utilisé pour Gratien et Valens. Voir les fiches sur la base siliquae :
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00309.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/01289.htm
http://www.siliques.fr/SILIQUAE_WEB/fichemonnaie/00092.htm
Siliquae
  CaptainMyCaptain 29. June 2018, 08:41

1715 ;)
  CaptainMyCaptain 29. June 2018, 08:29

Fantastic!
  CaptainMyCaptain 29. June 2018, 08:28

1715. :O
I can see how this was mistaken. The 5 is sunk a bit deeply in the die, showing the line from the round point that sunk the loop in the 5 punch. Fantastic date! A hard one to find for this series.
  CaptainMyCaptain 29. June 2018, 07:53

I believe this is 1718, for the monogram is the style of the period (condensed monogram with short foot L, or "no serif L") the type 3 monogram of P5 for Lima Half Real coinage. Type 1 being the 1702 large "Bogota type" type 2 being the 1702-1717. The change takes place in 1718, oddly. The lions are also the type of 1717-18, with the castles being the type of 1717-1720. :) Just making a note for collectors.
  xanthos 27. June 2018, 20:59

Wolfhard v. Roth-Wackernitz (1288-1302)
  Tejas554 26. June 2018, 10:19

The attribution to Hildebad is wishful thinking. This coin should definitely not be attributed to Hildebad, for whom no coins are known. The style is much later than that of 540/41. This is more likely an imitative coin of the late 6th century.
  errataprobi 25. June 2018, 20:26

RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.
  errataprobi 25. June 2018, 20:26

RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.
  errataprobi 25. June 2018, 20:25

RIC 706. p. 92. RIC 712 is listed with Rx. PAX AVGVSTI.