ROMAN COIN

Unknown artist

Roman contemporary (or more recent fantasy) forgery, of a silver denarius, based on obverse portraits of Julius Caesar minted during his lifetime and during the Octavianic/Augustan age and the AEGVPTO (or AEGVPT) CAPTA reverse type of Octavian minted in 28-27 BC. Must therefore post-date 28-27 BC.It appears that this coin is loosely copied from coins of the period. The obverse conflates various elements of coins of Caesar and Octavian/Augustus. The obverse legend D[I]VO IMP has never been employed. It is most likely based on a legend found on a Caesarian coin as well as one on an Octavianic coin: the CAESAR IMP obverse type of Caesar minted in January-February 44 BC (RRC 480/3) and the DIVO IVL reverse type of Octavian minted in 36 BC (RRC 540). Obverse portraits of Julius Caesar issued during his lifetime and in the Octavianic/Augustan age invariably depict him wearing a laurel wreath (e.g. RRC 480, RIC I (rev.ed.) 337). The star in front of Caesar's head is also seen on an Octavianic coin from 38 BC (RRC 534/1). The star is also seen behind Caesar's head on coins minted during his own lifetime (RRC 480/5). The lituus is also seen behind Caesar's head on coins minted in his lifetime (e.g. RRC 480/2a, 3). Incidentally, the lituus is depicted on the obverse of the AEGVPTO CAPTA reverse type (RIC I 275). It seems like a crescent is depicted below the lituus - incidentally, there is an obverse portrait of Caesar also minted during his lifetime depicting a crescent behind his head (RRC 480/4). The reverse is based on denarii of Augustus, struck in Rome (RIC I 275a-b) and the East (RIC I 544). However, the inscription normally reads AEGVPTO or AEGVPT; AEGIPTO suggests the die-cutter is not fully literate. Furthermore, the crocodile is standing left on the copy; the originals have the crocodile right.The British Museum has a 'fantasy coin' on photo-file which shares the same reverse and a similar obverse with the inscription DIVO IVLIO. Therefore, it does suggest that this might be a piece made in the 17th to 19th centuries, as suggested below by Marvin Tameanko.There is no evidence on the surface that the coin is plated; however it could be a thickly plated copy where the silver has protected the copper from corrosing and becoming visible. It could also be a copy in a slightly more base silver than the original coins. Recent scientific analysis by Duncan Hook, in the Dept of Conservation and Scientific Research at the British Museum, suggests that the coin is struck from silver and that it is not a plated coin.Interpreting the coin is difficult. Were it a plated piece, then it would be explicable as an attempt to create a coin for profit by using a smaller amount of silver. However, why would someone create a 'fantasy piece' like this in the ancient period from solid silver? The best explanation seems to be that it was made for people to buy whilst on the Grand Tour in Italy. It was subsequently lost near Brighton.