Silver FAKE Roman Denarius Dated AD66!! WOW!!!!

[jimmy uk]

Found this little beauty today on pasture land it was only 2 inchs deep its been ID as a Nero Fourrée Denarius DATED AD66!

which im very shocked about as its my first silver Roman coin and its had to be fake and even more rarer

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showrecords.php?product=31566&limit=recent

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[TheRandyMan]

Re: Silver FAKE Roman Denarius Dated AD69!! WOW!!!!

Holy Cow! Fake??!!! BANNER!!!!

 

[N.J.THer]

Very cool...congrats.

Don't know much about this type of coinage but it sounds like it maybe banner worthy. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you..lol.

NJ

 

[Daedalus]

Now this has to be one of the most rare finds their could be . Nice going on this item and I am voting for the banner on this one.
Nice job !

 

[kane23]

Much better than average fake. Kane 23

 

[rottonr]

Fake by who, when and why?? Sounds very intrusting but I know nothing about this.

 

[g-olden years]

Hey, folks, click on the link Jimmy provided in his initial post to see the additional information where he registered this coin in UK. It HAD to be fake because that obverse side was never used with that reverse side on the official coin!

Jimmy, are the official coins solid silver or are they silver-clad base metal like the fake?

BANNER VOTE! This groovy coin in good shape and is an old fake version of very old coin. Andi

 

[jimmy uk]

Fake by who, when and why?? Sounds very intrusting but I know nothing about this.

faked by the Romans 2000 years ago it was faked by a Roman to copy a real coin at that time AD66

Hey, folks, click on the link Jimmy provided in his initial post to see the additional information where he registered this coin in UK. It HAD to be fake because that obverse side was never used with that reverse side on the official coin!

Jimmy, are the official coins solid silver or are they silver-clad base metal like the fake?

BANNER VOTE! This groovy coin in good shape and is an old fake version of very old coin. Andi

yes the real coins are solid silver but mine is a only half silver

 

[jimmy uk]

thanks every one who has voted for a banner dont know much about how banners work

but its funny to know that even 2000 years ago people where still fakeing coins

 

[jimmy uk]

I think the UKFD might be wrong on this one on the Reverse not being used before. Ric 67 Nero Denarius. Laureate and bearded head of Nero right; IMP NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS / Salus draped, seated left on throne, holding patera, SALVS in exergue.

The only difference is the wording used by UKFD...Enthroned Left.

SS

what does this mean mate its a fake from 20th century?

 

[jimmy uk]

I think the UKFD might be wrong on this one on the Reverse not being used before. Ric 67 Nero Denarius. Laureate and bearded head of Nero right; IMP NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS / Salus draped, seated left on throne, holding patera, SALVS in exergue.

The only difference is the wording used by UKFD...Enthroned Left.

SS

i did a silver test, you know tin foil and spit and it really did smelt of rotten eggs bad. so it must be silver

what does this mean mate its a fake from 20th century?

I just edited the post, I think it may be modern

SS

 

[Silver Searcher]

Jimmy I have removed my posts to your thread because I believe I made mistakes with some of the imformation I posted

The Obverse is different to Ric67, and is indeed Ric47 as stated by UKFD, and like they say no reference to these two different sides, being used on the same coin. But I still have doubts to it being Ancient if it is, it could be worth quite a bit of Money...I hope it is real(Ancient Fake - Copy) but there are still a few things that don't look right the very round flan for one, the legand, and the two indentations on both sides of the coin ...good luck. I would vote Banner but I'm still not convinced, would like Crusader, or IP to comment on it

SS

 

[N.J.THer]

I know nothing about these ancient coins but is it possible to be an ancient 'mint error'. Were the two sides used by the same people around the same time but just on two different coins? Just a thought.

NJ

 

[jimmy uk]

i found this http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/thumbnails.php?album=2&page=49

its got loads of fake coins of my coin on here and mine doesnt look like any of them

 

[CRUSADER]

Jimmy I have removed my posts to your thread because I believe I made mistakes with some of the imformation I posted

The Obverse is different to Ric67, and is indeed Ric47 as stated by UKDFD, and like they say no reference to these two different sides, being used on the same coin. But I still have doubts to it being Ancient if it is, it could be worth quite a bit of Money...I hope it is real(Ancient Fake - Copy) but there are still a few things that don't look right the very round flan for one, the legand, and the two indentations on both sides of the coin ...good luck. I would vote Banner but I'm still not convinced, would like Crusader, or IP to comment on it

SS

This was Dad's thoughts:
'If it is a contemporary forgery the obverse is using the laur head right of RIC 47 and the Rev Salus of RIC 67. So the UKFD on a hybrid is correct but as SS points out correctly there was sometimes no “A” but a “Λ” used at that time on Nero coins – so would a contemporary forgery use that? Quite likely as other Nero coins around that time did use the “A” in CAESAR. In fact RIC 47 in Sears 1927 photo example has a weak A rather than the “Λ”. So it is still possibly a circa AD66 contemporary Forgery, or even a debased/plated silver that has never been known until now and possibly a modern fake but very cleverly done to get that sort of wear onto it.'

Jimmy,
(firstly its only a small point but it always helps to learn the terminology [I often used the fake word as well] - its not 'FAKE' unless its modern; Its a contemporary Forgery, Local imitation, Fourree, or something else??
If I were on ebay I probably would pass based on the photo, just gut feeling. The UKDFD gives it some legitimacy, as they are right more of the time than the PAS IDs. I rate the site very highly.
This will bring a smile to SS; Its the first one I'm unsure of without it in the hand
I thought I could see a join around the edge? Has it a seam or the like around it?

Its quite a good Fourree (some are blundered) but they quite often pretty skillfully made and Spelled which I think may point the finger at an 'X' coin maker or a current one making some extra money.

I checked a couple of my 1st Century examples & they are quite a bit thinner than yours, the copper core being pretty thin & then silver plated on both sides. Yours would be a thick example & very little of the copper has bled out Interestingly one of the ones I looked at was a Salvs Reverse on a Vespasian AD69.

I could honestly flip a coin on it being a modern fantasy/something contemporary. The interesting thing is what is the 'something', as Dad pointed out, there is a possibility its a plated/debased 'unknown or at least unpublished' semi-officially minted coin.

If I flipped that coin now (because I have swayed all over the place), I would call it Ancient but needs much more research.
CONGRATS its a puzzle of a start to your Roman Silver collection

 

[CRUSADER]

i found this http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/thumbnails.php?album=2&page=49

its got loads of fake coins of my coin on here and mine doesnt look like any of them

Most Modern fakes like the ones on that site are of 'known' rare or semi rare coins. If yours is Modern it would be a 'Fantasy Coin' which you could make without the 'copy' stamp & little worry of breaking the Law. The issue would be what would you sell it as to make money? Might try an Extremely Rare 'unknown' hybrid (this might then break the Law) or just not meant to be sold to fool, just sold at a Roman fair as a souvenir which would be hard to sell on as real I was given a Celtic coin in silver minted by someone messing around with his skills (looks pretty Ancient & dished, plus you can put 'wear on a die' [comment for Dad]).

 

[jimmy uk]

thanks for allt he info it hasnt got a seam around the coin but as you can see on the coin its got 2 seams that it looks like some one has folded the silver over the copper alloy and then hammered it, which makes me thing if some one was gonna fake it in 20th century there would of made a better job

 

[jimmy uk]

just got a Email back from a roman coin expert from the British musum about my coin and there said.....

Hi Jimmy



Thanks for sending me this coin – could we record it on the PAS database?



It’s a plated copy of a denarius of Nero, imitating issues dating to the period AD 65-68. It’s not a precise copy – the legend NERO CAESAR does not appear for the SALVS type. I don’t see any problem with it being an ancient forgery as it’s unlikely that any modern forger would go to the trouble of making plated copies!



Hope this helps









sounds like good news to me do you think

 

[derfel]

well done cracking coin, still waiting for my first roman silver

 

[CRUSADER]

just got a Email back from a roman coin expert from the British musum about my coin and there said.....

Thanks for sending me this coin – could we record it on the PAS database?

It’s a plated copy of a Denarius of Nero, imitating issues dating to the period AD 65-68. It’s not a precise copy – the legend NERO CAESAR does not appear for the SALVS type. I don’t see any problem with it being an ancient forgery as it’s unlikely that any modern forger would go to the trouble of making plated copies!

sounds like good news to me do you think

It 'sounds' good News but I'm still hunting down a good 'expert' on Roman Coins, as they are largely ignored in the UK.
As there is no seams on the edge, I'm much happier its Ancient. But Ancient what

You would get a much better response from a collector [if your reading this join Tnet ] of these, as they would have access to much larger numbers of this material. I've yet to find one, somewhat proves that although rare, still not that valuable, maybe a little more than the official.

I already tried to illustrate with my picture why someone might have made this coin recently - its just because they can. (not to profit just to play with there skills). So when they say unlikely, that's what they mean.

I personally go to the British Museum last, they may have masses of material but relatively common stuff like Roman Coins & even 17th C tokens are not getting the attention they deserve. The BM does not actively seek our social history which are present on our 17th C Tokens, & are far from getting 1 of each type. Collections are often built around Greece or other classically trained themes.

I have had a Treasure Report which I proved was incorrect, & I recently was told when researching the source of there information on the maker of a button, that it was basically a guess (& a wrong one in my opinion, plus a couple of other book writers), there was no source & if I find the correct information that they would credit me with the amendments to there records. This was only 18-19th C, this is an area the US put us to shame, there records of this period are much better. Its only as good as the person who logged it, & time is their major issue, shortcuts are made when you have tons of material to get through.

So basically never assume that because it is the British Museum that they 'WILL' be correct.

However, I'm just placing all the arguments out there & my opinion is now 'inline' with the UKDFD & the BM. But personally I think the story is still only half told, as its all mostly assumptions (like I make sometimes as well) based on best probabilities & no depth of research in that specific area. You need many more opinions yet or at least the 1 or 2 specialist that might be out there & let me know if you ever find that contact! (I will be interested)