Silver Campgate - Looks cast

[Joshmaggosh]

Hi all,
Well... I thought I was buying a ratty, dirty Campgate with doors from bad seller photos off of a notorious auction site. I admit, I was blinded by the doors...

Anyway, what arrived was this... It appears to be silver (not magnetic, feel, weight) and looks cast although any trace of a seam appears to be worn as, if it weren't for the porous look, the edges look surprisingly normal.

The wear and encrustations look honest and very old (not machined). Anyway... What is this? I'm assuming it's a modern-ish fake... but could it be an ancient cast fake?

Either way... It's a curiosity. It cost me less than a cheap frozen pizza so, although probably worthless... I like it. 

Thanks for your opinions!

Constantius II   
FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C   
LDC left   
VIRTVS-CAESS   
S - F   / ARLQ   
Arles   RIC VII Arles 316
2.65 grams

[Victor]

if the coin is ancient, and it looks like it is, why cast in the wrong metal? I have had an FTR (see picture below) that looked silver and seen other LRB's that looked silver. I wrote a little bit about this on my metallurgy page--

"There are other ways a coin could have a silvery surface. Corrosion may also promote a silvery surface on a coin. Lead corrodes very easily, and as it is displaced, silver can be deposited on the surface. Various  methods in the cleaning process can also give a coin a silvery appearance, such as heating a coin or even washing a coin. Lead can  be removed by prolonged washing, leaving more silver on the surface"

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/metallurgy/

[Joshmaggosh]

Thanks for the reply Victor!

Yeah, it's an oddball. Ha, I think I'm happy it's not just a normal coin. It is silver all the way through as there are a couple areas on the edges that are broken away showing silver throughout.

I just got it in the mail after work and ran straight here for an opinion. I'm going to spend some time looking for anything similar later tonight. I may post on FORVM for thoughts as well, including your reply if that's ok with you.

It does look ancient. Very cool. Thanks again!

Josh

[Victor]

I may post on FORVM for thoughts as well, including your reply if that's ok with you.

I should have said something before, but I wish that you had not posted my comment on FAC. I saw that two people have already said they think the FTR was a cast fake. I am a little amazed by how people can so expertly judge coins from pictures. The FTR picture was the sellers picture (I am trying to find my picture) and in hand it had a bit different look, but I use that picture to make a point-- "this coin can't be real." It also looks like the seller used an odd angle for lighting, maybe from the bottom, which helps give an odd appearance. In hand it still had a silvery appearance though and no signs of casting besides the soft surfaces, which can happen because of corrosion and as I said earlier "corrosion may also promote a silvery surface on a coin."

I really don't like when people judge coins by photos alone and completely disregard opinions of people that have seen the coin in hand; but there is a lot of that on that board. Though I am a member there, I will not respond, as I have stopped posting on FAC for a variety of reasons, but a big reason is that it is a commercial website.

For an interesting topic on the folly of judging coins by picture alone and the hubris associated with it, search "monneron" on FAC and the first topic you see is  "French eBay seller monneron - Peculiar Patina"  I posted some in this topic as "vic9128" (account since deleted) and some of my posts were deleted because I kept defending the coins. Anyone that thought the coins were authentic was dismissed as an amateur but people condemning the coins were allowed to continue posting.

The older posts were deleted because they were from less experienced collectors and indicated there was more of a debate than there is.  They were from our less experienced members and did not really add to the discussion.  I did not delete posts that indicated the coins might be genuine if they added to the discussion.  (Yes, I realize this is my opinion.)
I believe the thread is MORE INFORMATIVE without the speculation of inexperienced people.

I was one of the "inexperienced people" with only 10 years experience at the time. 

 Eventually most people figured out the truth and there was even a metallurgical analysis done on some of the coins, which also indicated that they were genuine. I also made a page about this-  http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/monneron/

Anyway, I might be a little defensive about the topic, but I always urge caution when only looking at a picture of a coin...of course, it is easy to be overly cautious and also make mistakes; but I would rather err on the side of caution.

[Joshmaggosh]

Hi Victor,
I apologize for forwarding your response... I should have waited for your reply.

In my eagerness to present a "complete" post, it did't occur to me that you may want to support your coin with additional information if it were to be evaluated itself... or even if you would wanted it shared across forums. In the future, I'll be more thoughtful as I really appreciate your input.

I agree with what you about the pitfalls of evaluating coins by photos. I have yet to read the thread you reference as I'm stuck at the office but will after work.

In my coin's case... ancient... modern, it probably can't be known for sure but I agree that it looks ancient. Thank you for your replies!

Josh

[Victor]

In my coin's case... ancient... modern, it probably can't be known for sure

I could always be wrong...I have been a few times this year. On the FTR, I actually had it in hand though.

Another problem with judging a coin from a picture alone, is corrosion. Coins with corrosion have many hallmarks of cast coins, which is why some fakers speed up the corrosion process.

For more on how bronze coins can appear silver, this is a good article-- Teresa Clay, “Metallurgy and Metallography in Numismatics.” Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 17 (1988) : 341- 352. I wish that I had a copy on .pdf so I could link to it on my articles page.

[Genio popvli romani]

At the first glance, the coin (CII) looks cast due,among others, to the crack with rounded edges which can be an evidence of lack of metal during casting or a miscast original crack. It would be interesting to see the edge of the coin where it seems broken (9 o'clock).
In the other hand as Victor says, first it is difficult to judge only on a picture and two, a silvered look can have multiple origins. I have two folles that are looking like billon antoninian including the parts where they are corroded despite the fact that none them is known to have been struck with such a material.
So, I am very interested in reading the article you mention.

[Victor]

So, I am very interested in reading the article you mention.

I will get it scanned and converted to a .pdf so I can upload it, probably by next week.

[Genio popvli romani]

Great !
Thank you.

[Victor]

I uploaded the article-

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/articles/Clay_Metallurgy_and_Metallography_in_Numismatics.pdf

the part I mentioned starts on pg 348 titled "Changes after Minting"

[Joshmaggosh]

Hi all,
If your curious or if it would help determine ancient VS modern cast... Below are some close-ups of the coin. Thanks!

Josh

[Victor]

 The side shot shows an interior that seems to be very crystallized. This crystallization would have taken a while, so it seems to be ancient.

[Genio popvli romani]

I have a different analysis, I think this spongy aspect is the result of the casting process, this is often the case with manual gravity casting. I also see on each side of the broken part some use of abrasive, probably to make the sprue and/or the parting line of the mould disappear.

[Victor]

I also see on each side of the broken part some use of abrasive, probably to make the sprue and/or the parting line of the mould disappear.

You may be right, I noticed the scratches, maybe file marks on the side.

[Joshmaggosh]

Ha, ok I hope I'm not wearing you guys out with this one... Here's a better look at the edges. I've taken a photo every 90 degrees or so around the coin. There are scratches and some casting pores but any evidence of a seam appears to have been worn (or convincingly tooled away).

Anyway, I appreciate both of your thoughts, I'll let this one rest after hearing your opinions on the edges here. Thank you!

J