Help Wanted for Unknown Roman

[DaveG38 385]

I'm not a Roman coin collector, nor do I know anything about them (the Romans bypassed me in school history) so I'd be grateful for any advice about this coin. I bought it in a job lot of early milled material the other day. For all I know it might be a modern repro. Does anyone know what it is and what it's worth? Diameter is 33mm and it appears to be made of brass or bronze. Edge is very uneven. Weight is 26 gms. The obverse inscription appears to be : IMP CAESNERVAETR IANO AVGGERDACR roughly!!

Edited October 9, 2014 by DaveG38

[Michael-Roo 777]

Looks a bit like a Nero. Looking at the photos I can't tell if it is genuine or repro. Very nice if genuine!

[JPK 3]

It's This one mate

Trajan AE Sestertius. 103-111 AD. IMP CAES NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V P P, laureate bust right, slight drapery on left shoulder / SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI SC, ARAB ADQ in ex, Arabia standing facing, head left, holding with branch and bundle of cinnamon sticks; camel at foot left.

[JPK 3]

Don't know if it's the real deal or not btw.

[Peckris 579]

Damn, you beat me to it JPK - I just saw that it's Trajan! It doesn't look like an obvious repro, they are usually a bit better grade and usually have an incuse stamp to show the manufacturer. But it's not beyond possibility.

[DaveG38 385]

Thank you for this advice. I've now managed to track down an example online.

http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.44749

Based on the information on this and another site, it seems that the composition, diameter and weight of mine are just about right. Add to this that it was in with a small lot of F+ - VF early miled, some quite nice, and I'm reasonably confident that it is genuine. There are also no obvious signs of recent manufacture or marks to indicate that it is a fake.

The question is whether it will pique my interest in Roman or not.

[Peckris 579]

The question is whether it will pique my interest in Roman or not.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition).

[DaveG38 385]

The question is whether it will pique my interest in Roman or not.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition).

For me the problem is one of understanding the series. The number of emperors is bewildering, as is the number of mints and designs, even for a single emperor. Then there's the denominations and the metal used, and it all becomes a big melting pot of uncertainty. Add in the possibilities for fakes and for me it's a minefield I don't think my poor brain can handle. Nice progressive English coinage, one king/queen after the other, nicely dated or dateable plus a range of denominations that I can understand works for me. Somewhere I 've got a bag of raw Roman finds that I have tried to attribute after cleaning, but which I gave up on as my old head became completely befuddled by it all.

[Peckris 579]

The question is whether it will pique my interest in Roman or not.

It's a very nice example, so if that doesn't work you might be immune to the attractions of Roman! It's an early Empire sestertius, and those are usually in higher demand than the silver denarius (probably because they were 'working currency' and it's harder to find them in decent condition).

For me the problem is one of understanding the series. The number of emperors is bewildering, as is the number of mints and designs, even for a single emperor. Then there's the denominations and the metal used, and it all becomes a big melting pot of uncertainty. Add in the possibilities for fakes and for me it's a minefield I don't think my poor brain can handle. Nice progressive English coinage, one king/queen after the other, nicely dated or dateable plus a range of denominations that I can understand works for me. Somewhere I 've got a bag of raw Roman finds that I have tried to attribute after cleaning, but which I gave up on as my old head became completely befuddled by it all.

This is one area where Spinks are very good - their catalogue is ideal for a Roman type collector, as they only list the most common and typical types for each emperor, in each denomination. Plus they list the emperors in date order.

I think the hardest thing is to actually determine which ruler is which from the coin itself, but once you've done that, the possibilities for building up a good type collection of Roman is virtually limitless.

[JPK 3]

Wildwinds is a great web site for identifying your roman coins,but I agree theres a massive range which csn be a bit bewildering,was chatting to someone the other day,and he's collecting the 12 Caesars,which narrows it down a bit.

[damian1986 142]

My approach is to focus on the denarii and antoninianii of legitimate emperors and to build around that. Generally those who ruled exclusively and ruled the whole of the Roman Empire.

I'd argue that the British series covering a similar period to date (~ 500 years) can be as unforgiving... myriad mint marks, the odd threefarthing, a civil war, and many an A over T and what-not...