The style of this exemplar is very unusual. I think the coins authenticity is doubtful. Here is a picture of an undoubtedly original piece:
https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/athena_numismatics/18/product/justinian_i_527565_ar_half_siliqua_from_the_af_collection_very_rare_and_stunning_/630560/Default.aspx

It was indeed a full-weight 8R. This (and most of the Unsolds in this Ponterio grouping, of which there were more than a few) ended up in Sedwick 9 the next spring.

It didn't exactly set the world ablaze. Went unsold here... didn't sell very impressively at Sedwick - esp. considering the decently clear date and the 4R dies error. That error, btw... not all that uncommon on Mexico going back to Carlos II pieces.

The reference to Friedrich Stefan No. 5 is misleading. Stefan's No. 5 is not a bronze coin, but a silver siliqua, which also looks completely different from the present coin.

This is definitely not attributable to the Gepids let alone king Kunimund. Style and fabric suggest that this is a modern fake.

This is defnitely not a Gepidic coin and certaintly not attributable to Turisint. Style and fabric suggest that this is a modern copy/fake of a Marcianus Nummus.

This is definitely not a Gepidic coin and certainly not attributable to king Turisint.

Apparently a modern fake:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-10771

I wish the weight was listed here because the obverse of the coin is clearly a 4 Reales die. If it is a mixed denomination that would be a very important coin to note since the 4 is visible, and if on an 8 Reales, is rare.

Missing pedigree: Gian-Luigi Cornaggia Medici Castiglioni collection (Münzen und Medaillen Basel, XIII, 1954 - lot 515 - there with 3,17g and former provenance "Bourgey")

It's not mentioned in lot description and I'm wondering if bidders noticed, but this coin has large pedigree: Etienne Récamier collection (Bourgey auction march 1925), then Gian-Luigi Cornaggia Medici Castiglioni collection (Münzen und Medaillen Basel, XIII, 1954 - lot 252).
Cornaggias collection of 81 coins represented 1955 nearly 1/3 of all known treveri antoninians (Cahn SNR 37).

That is actually RIC 370, from the mint in Laodicea.

That is actually RIC 370, from the mint in Laodicea.

I have to disagree, this is a 1623. The 3 is quite different than the "5" from D, which looks like an S. but what shows me this is a 23, is the overall design style. Also add to that the reverse is a 1620-23/2 style with large globes vs a floral design. The crown lower arch is also to wide for 1625.1625 was the year the design was modified and changed until 1630. Even the 1625/4 issues used the new reverse so I have to go with 1623. And likely an overdate at that as each year for D has one, if not virgin, which, ironically is rare with this assayer in 8 Reales. :/

I see 21/0. Anyone else verify?

1617. The reason this one is identifiable is due to the use of all Lions in the center and lower shield. As well the reverse, all reused by D in 1618 and 1619. Same dies! So, 1617. :)

Late 1612-16. :)

This is a Spanish imitation and not anything related to McCabe group H1 cited. Cf "The Unofficial Roman Republican Semisses Struck in Spain" by Pere P. Ripollès and Richard Witschonke for many similar examples.

Second (ΔIC) not First Neocorate, thus after 218.

Want to note the 1731/0 is an F/G.
Also should note that 1730 F/G is confirmed in 8 reales and 2 Reales. :)

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis

It has been shown that very likely this coin with monogram does not exist,
so this is a fake coin. Originally there was an error of attribution of a coin of Aelia Zenonis