This coin is from the mint of Rome, which is much rarer than those from the Ticinum mint.

BCD Boiotia 335 (this coin)

BCD Boiotia 550 (this coin), Hepworth 28 (this coin)
1968-11-20 Sothebys Lot 51

The “fallen horseman” reverse is over-struck on the “hut” reverse.

Ex Niklovitz Collection ("Sammlung eines bekannten ausländischen Amateurs"), Leo Hamburger Auction 76 (19 Oct 1925), Lot 1045

Ex Berk FPL 2 (Fall 1974), No. 59 (ex "Col. Tancock Collection," illustrated)

The obverse symbol is a kantharos.

The obverse symbol is a kantharos.

The obverse symbol is a kantharos.

This coin is a fourree, and likely an early Celtic imitation. The monogram below the throne and the control mark on the bottom left field help attribute this coin as imitating Price 1356. The original coin of the type was a lifetime issue minted in Lampsakos (Lampsacus) between 328-323 BC. The monogram below the throne consists of the letters Delta, Omicron and Tau according to Price. The control mark on the bottom left is Demeter standing facing, holding two torches.

Ex. Jacquier Liste 8, 1988, Nr. 272.

This coin = SNG Lockett 1994 (Macedonia-Aegina, 1942)

Ex Pozzi Collection, Ars Classica I (1921), lot 1681

This coin = SNG Lockett 2067 (Part IV, Peloponnese-Aeolis, 1945)

This coin illustrated in Banti (42/2) with a provenance of A. K. u. M 1, 1969 n, 54. This reference is to "Cataloghi di vendita all'asta e di offerta della Kunst and Munzem, Lugano."

now in the collection of the coin cabinet of Schwerin and exhibited in the museum of Schwerin.

Date is probably L ΙϚ (RY 16) and extremely rare thus. RPC IV.4, 1403.

circa 175-177. Λ ΑΥ ΚΟΜΟΔ ΚΑΙCΑΡ ΓΕΡ C Bare-headed, draped and cuirassed bust of Commodus to right, seen from rear. Rev. ΚΥΖΙ-ΚΗΝΩΝ Serpent-entwined lighted altar surmounted by two poppies; at base, two ears of corn. RPC IV.2, ID 11758. Extremely rare

This specimen is from Henri Joseph de la Barre de Nanteuil collection, № 742; also published by Marinescu in his Making and Spending Money Along the Bosporus under Issue 164, 617.1

This is RIC II Domitian 662, not 661. The name has the full form DOMITIANVS instead of the usual abbreviation DOMIT.

In my professional opinion, this specimen represents a heavily reworked and artificially altered coin, rather than an authentic numismatic piece in its original state.
This type of modification was particularly widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The technique involved taking a genuine but significantly worn coin and extensively re-engraving it by hand. Local “restorers” would essentially carve a new design onto the original flan, artificially recreating relief, sharpness, surface quality, and apparent preservation.
As a result, the final object becomes a form of modern authorial engraving executed on an ancient blank, producing a visually attractive but fundamentally misleading artifact.
From a numismatic, scientific, and commercial standpoint, such pieces must be classified as forgeries or at least as heavily manipulated objects, since the original historical fabric, style, and surfaces have been deliberately destroyed and replaced.
In my assessment, this coin should not be offered as an authentic numismatic specimen, and its description should clearly state that it represents a modern engraved alteration on an ancient base, effectively equivalent to a forgery.

In my professional opinion, this specimen represents a heavily reworked and artificially altered coin, rather than an authentic numismatic piece in its original state.
This type of modification was particularly widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The technique involved taking a genuine but significantly worn coin and extensively re-engraving it by hand. Local “restorers” would essentially carve a new design onto the original flan, artificially recreating relief, sharpness, surface quality, and apparent preservation.
As a result, the final object becomes a form of modern authorial engraving executed on an ancient blank, producing a visually attractive but fundamentally misleading artifact.
From a numismatic, scientific, and commercial standpoint, such pieces must be classified as forgeries or at least as heavily manipulated objects, since the original historical fabric, style, and surfaces have been deliberately destroyed and replaced.
In my assessment, this coin should not be offered as an authentic numismatic specimen, and its description should clearly state that it represents a modern engraved alteration on an ancient base, effectively equivalent to a forgery.

In my professional opinion, this specimen represents a heavily reworked and artificially altered coin, rather than an authentic numismatic piece in its original state.
This type of modification was particularly widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The technique involved taking a genuine but significantly worn coin and extensively re-engraving it by hand. Local “restorers” would essentially carve a new design onto the original flan, artificially recreating relief, sharpness, surface quality, and apparent preservation.
As a result, the final object becomes a form of modern authorial engraving executed on an ancient blank, producing a visually attractive but fundamentally misleading artifact.
From a numismatic, scientific, and commercial standpoint, such pieces must be classified as forgeries or at least as heavily manipulated objects, since the original historical fabric, style, and surfaces have been deliberately destroyed and replaced.
In my assessment, this coin should not be offered as an authentic numismatic specimen, and its description should clearly state that it represents a modern engraved alteration on an ancient base, effectively equivalent to a forgery.

In my professional opinion, this specimen represents a heavily reworked and artificially altered coin, rather than an authentic numismatic piece in its original state.
This type of modification was particularly widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The technique involved taking a genuine but significantly worn coin and extensively re-engraving it by hand. Local “restorers” would essentially carve a new design onto the original flan, artificially recreating relief, sharpness, surface quality, and apparent preservation.
As a result, the final object becomes a form of modern authorial engraving executed on an ancient blank, producing a visually attractive but fundamentally misleading artifact.
From a numismatic, scientific, and commercial standpoint, such pieces must be classified as forgeries or at least as heavily manipulated objects, since the original historical fabric, style, and surfaces have been deliberately destroyed and replaced.
In my assessment, this coin should not be offered as an authentic numismatic specimen, and its description should clearly state that it represents a modern engraved alteration on an ancient base, effectively equivalent to a forgery.

In my professional opinion, this specimen represents a heavily reworked and artificially altered coin, rather than an authentic numismatic piece in its original state.
This type of modification was particularly widespread in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The technique involved taking a genuine but significantly worn coin and extensively re-engraving it by hand. Local “restorers” would essentially carve a new design onto the original flan, artificially recreating relief, sharpness, surface quality, and apparent preservation.
As a result, the final object becomes a form of modern authorial engraving executed on an ancient blank, producing a visually attractive but fundamentally misleading artifact.
From a numismatic, scientific, and commercial standpoint, such pieces must be classified as forgeries or at least as heavily manipulated objects, since the original historical fabric, style, and surfaces have been deliberately destroyed and replaced.
In my assessment, this coin should not be offered as an authentic numismatic specimen, and its description should clearly state that it represents a modern engraved alteration on an ancient base, effectively equivalent to a forgery.