Coin Information: Tantalus S/N 31278

Image Rights: All Rights Reserved

This item has been viewed 377 times.
Coin type:	Roman Provincial
Entered by:	scottatlaw
Added on:	Jun 20, 2008
Ruler:	Gordian III (AVGVSTVS)
Region, City:	Moesia Superior, Viminacium
Coin:	EF- AE Sestertius IMPGORDIANVSPIVSFELAVG - Laurelate, paludamentum draped over cuirass bust right (viewed from rear). PMSC-VMNC - Moesia standing (arms hanging with stolla draped across lap) between advancing Bull and Lion.
Exergue:	ANV
Mint:	(Year 5)
Wt./Size/Axis:	10.46g / 27mm / -
Rarity:	R10 (Unique?)
References:	Unlisted Variant of Jekov #21A
Acquisition/Sale:	Numismatik Lanz München www.sixbid.com Auction 141 05-26-2008
Notes:	Jan 2, 09 - This photo is displayed with the express permission and courtesy of Numismatik Lanz München (as used in thier Auction 141, May 2008 catalog). Because this coin is a contemporary imitation it is worth noting that no standard reference on Viminacium coins directly cites to this coin. Evidence of a 1700 year old crime... Take a second look at this coin, it is an ancient imitation, probably struck between late 242 and early 245 AD. Compare it to the real thing: http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=124790 Why date it to this period of time? Part of the reason is that if it had been struck any earlier it wouldn't have used that obverse legend that it does (seeing as that legend isn't used until 242 AD at the earliest). If it had been struck any later then early 245 AD it wouldn't have been a convincing contemporary forgery due to lack of toning (you wouldn't expect to see a shiny freshly struck copper Gordian III coin a year or more after he died, it would draw too much attention to itself, something a forger desperately doesn't want to do). So how do I know its a forgery? On first take, without any warning, I think that most folks, and even some Viminacium specialists, probably would be fooled if they came across this coin (especialy in lower grades). In Jekov's catalog on Viminacium coins, coin number 21A is listed as authentic, and it so happens that my coin is a reverse die match. Jekov's specimen has an entirely different obverse that calls even more suspicion upon our coins because Jekov's coin uses the out of date (for year 5) obverse legend "IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG". Jekov's error is quite understandable though given the notably lower grade of Jekov's specimen. Jekov's research found the coin to be unique and in my research I've yet to come across anything even remotely similar except for the present coin. Its likely there are a few matches floating around out there in varying grades of condition but remain mis or unattributed. The small number of surviving examples is probably indicative of a relatively small scale criminal operation and/or that the counterfits were seized and destroyed by the authorities. The rather high level of wear on Jekov's coin though suggests that at least that specimen found its way into circulation for a good long while. Mine on the other hand doesn't seem to have been circulated much, but on the other hand, government officials don't seem to have seized and melted it down. Interesting. Only because this coin is in such a high grade can I confidently say that this coin is an ancient forgery. In lower grades, like Jekov's, such a forgery becomes quite hard to detect. I'm relatively certain this isn't a modern forgery due to the convincing patina and soil deposits remaining on the coin as well as the fact that it matches up to Jekov's coin which certainly bears the signs of ancient wear and tear. So what stands out on this coin that shows its a fake? First off there are a large number of unpublished "errors" and "variants" on this coin: 1- The reverse legend reads PMSC-VMNC rather then PMSC-OLVIM. 2-Moesia is shown with her stolla hanging across the front of her waist rather then behind her backside or over her shoulder. 3- The size of the dots on the coin's border are notably smaller then the dots on every other year 4 or 5 Viminacium coin I've seen. 4- The style of letters does not match the font used for years 4 or 5's legends. 5-The style of the bull and lion are drasticaly different from the standard Viminacium issues (especialy the lion's face and mane). 6- Moesia's body shape is curvier (around the hips) then the standard year 4 or 5 reverse design (she is shown as being very tall and thin, almost overly stylized). 7-The style of Gordian III's bust appears to have been possibly recut from a bare bust to a draped and cuirassed style; neither of which colsely matches that seen in the standard coins of Gordian III. 8- The style of Gordian's portrait is too juvinile and angular for a year 5 portrait. One final note is that the coin's weight is extraordinarily light for a year 5 sestertius, which we would reliably expect to weigh almost twice as much as it does. Interestingly enough, Jekov's specimen is well within the perameters of a year 5 sestertius. Alone, none of those above factors is probably enough to convince me, but together, the circumstantial evidence proves to be quite impressive. Even so, those are not what convince me about this coin's origins. What does persuade me is Jekov's reverse die match with the very suspicious obverse legend. The odds of such an incredibly error ridden coin made by the official mint is relatively low, but TWO different error coins made with at least 3 different dies (which weren't used on any known official issues) seems to be a liklihood bordering on the impossible. Whoever struck these coins rotated thier dies just like the official mint BUT because we don't see any cross over between these three dies and the known official dies from the Viminacium mint, I feel quite safe in concluding that this coin is the product of a separate forgers workshop. What troubles me is this: whoever made this coin was very good at what they did. While it is a little bit off, this coin's portrait and unique reverse design demonstrate advanced technical merit and a higher degree of artistic skill then one might expect from a simple criminal forger. The multiple dies and circulation wear suggests that a good number of these coins were produced and passed into circulation. So why is this troubling? Assuming our forgers were pros, why would they have left TWO HUGE CLUES that thier coins are fakes? Those two clues stand out like a sore thumb on the reverse. The reverse legend is an aesthetic improvement designed to add semetry to the reverse image by rewritting the legend so that it means the same thing but instead of using an odd number of letters it uses an even number divided by the figure of Moesia. The second odd blunder is the positioning of Moesia's stolla so that it comes across her front instead of her backside. This method of displaying a stolla as far as I have found isn't shown on any other Roman or Greek coin. We can probably assume the stolla wouldn't have been worn by women in this manner. One possible reason for both of these errors is that both were simply meant to cover up mistakes by the celator. The new legend might have been crafted because the celator accidentaly placed an "L" after the legend break (omitting the letter "O"). The clever fix to this was to turn the letter "L" into a "V" and rewrite the abreviation to "V(i)M(i)N(a)C(ivm)". Even more clever yet, this new abreviation was designed with semetry (to the first 4 letters of the legend) so as to draw the viewers attention away from the obvious error. After all, who realy looks that close at thier pocket change unless something jumps out as wrong. An illiterate victim wouldn't ahve likely detected such an error anyway. The strange stolla on the other hand is quite perplexing and might have simply been added to the die to correct a die or design flaw. Perhaps even it was the result of a perspective error by an inexperienced celator. Its hard to say. I personaly conclude that the errors are intentional markers designed to protect the forger from paying out his fakes to the wrong people (more likely) or possibly from allowing them back into his coffers (less likely). I find it too hard to believe that such an amazingly well done fake could have such tell tale errors that were unintended when it is clear that whoever produced these fakes had a skilled eye for quality and detail.
Contact scottatlaw about this coin
Comments:	No comments have been posted for this coin.Comments are not being accepted for this coin.