El Cobrador

I've always found it an interesting convention, though, that the coinage of the Gallic emperors and other (even the most transient) usurpers is considered to be so, and as such consequently cataloged on an equal footing.. Just for comparison's sake, here's a genuine Tetricus antoninianus of mine. Its dimensions are 19 x 17.5 mm, with the weight coming in at 4.3 grams. I have it as RIC V 127.

Actually, its diminutive size suggested that to me also, but I'd then be thinking of an even later period. By the beginning of the fifth century, some issues of the western empire had gotten nearly this small. As for radiate or not, I see some "pointy" things there that may be rudimentary attempts at such. It's really hard to tell one way or the other.

I'm told this is an issue of Philip II, father of Alexander III (the Great). Portrait of Apollo on the obverse? Horseman reverse is a terribly common motif encountered across a wide spectrum of Greek coins. What do you think? Dimensions are 18.5 by 16 mm, weight comes in at a hefty 7.34 grams.

It's been almost a year since this was posted, and still no replies, so I'll take a shot at it. By the way, I don't think the images are "lousy" but rather entirely adequate for the purposes of identification. Size & weight below what you'd expect for a genuine coin of the period, plus the legends look pretty much like gibberish to me. Therefore I'd judge this to be barbarous. Such counterfeit antoniniani were often modeled on issues of the Gallic Emperors. so if any resemblance of the effigy to Tetricus wouldn't be remarkable.

I'd not run across one of these until today (the shop actually had acquired a pair of them, the one pictured below being by far in the better condition of the two). I find this issue rather amusing - tipping the scales at 57½ grams, its bulk seems rather at odds with its intended function as "small change".... I understand that these have been subject to counterfeiting. Does anybody see anything that might be a cause for concern in that regard? Actual hue of the coin is a nice, dark red brown - these photos were taken in a manner so as to best show extant detail.

A quite common coin, interesting in this instance solely on account of what appears to be a lamination flaw on the reverse.

I picked this up from a dealer for whom ancient coins are outside of his area of expertise, and thus (if I hadn't bought it on the spot) he was simply going to put it up on a general internet auction website. Apparently it was once in the inventory of a U.K. dealer (as evidenced by once being priced in £) who had it identified as a hemilitron issued under Hieron II of Syracuse between 230 and 215 BC. This dates its production and use to include the period of the Second Punic War, in which Hieron II was an ally of Rome. The Romans at this time hadn't yet achieved hegemony over the entire Italian peninsula, let alone the island of Sicily. The year after after Hieron II's death, Roman forces laid siege to Syracuse, ultimately taking and sacking the city. It was during this struggle that Archimedes, the renowned mathematician and inventor, was killed. From a numismatic standpoint, provided the above attribution's accurate, this'd have to be one of the last coin types put out by an independent Kingdom of Syracuse. It's 27 mm in diameter and weighs just over 18 grams. I'm presuming it's nothing rare, or even scarce, but aesthetically it just really appealed to me..

A dealer I patronize recently purchased a small, older collection (actually more of mishmash) at which I got to take a look before he sorted it. For whatever reason this was the sole British coin in the group and I was quite happy to acquire it for as little as he was willing to sell it as part of a larger lot. Is there a recorded mintage for this issue? Also, would I be wrong in thinking that, being the last shilling of George II struck, upon his death it was rather more likely for individuals to have removed such from circulation and put them aside as mementos?

The overall mintage of the 1831 penny supposedly totals 806,400. Does anybody have a notion to how that breaks down with regard to the various types? Also some die peculiarities to point out on this specimen. On the obverse, the two middle I's in "IIII" are each missing the upper serif. On the reverse, the colon following "DEF" is a mess, possibly ineptly repunched? Note that these photos were taken immediately after I acquired it, when it still had a lot of greasy grunge mucking up the surfaces. A subsequent soak in distilled water made it actually much more presentable than it appears here.

This happened to be in a batch of Greek coins that I had the good fortune to be the first to go through. The distinctive, concave "waffle" reverse was what made it stand out to me. It turns out to be an issue associated with Dardanos in the Troas region of Asia Minor, and probably dates back to the 6th century BC. Dimensions are roughly 11 by 7.5 mm, with its weight coming in at 0.57 grams. Here're a couple of (closed) auction listings that validate its attribution: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3345204 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1350692 I feel very lucky to have stumbled across this as I did.

I'm also on board with it being barbarous, and I'll add that I'd judge the condition for such to be exceptional.

I've developed an interest in British coinage if for no other reason than here in the U.S. (or at the very least in my region of the country) U.K.issues are very much something of a collecting backwater, and thus I find some really great material relegated to dealers' "bargain" bins. Case in point - this 1831 ".W.W" variety William IV penny turned up at a local (that being in my largely rural area a relative term, as it was still a sixty mile drive, one way) coin club sponsored show in a tray of "junk" coppers, and therefore cost me virtually nothing.