Answers

In regards to weight, starting from the left to right, they are 2.24, 2.80, 3.09, and 3.3 grams.

David Sear's Findings

There were a lot of differing opinions on these coins so I decided to send the coins in doubt out to be professionally reviewed by the highly respected David R. Sear. From left to right, here are the answers. Quotes denote David Sear's comments on the coin.

First coin is a COPY. "This is a modern (late 20th century) die-struck forgery of a silver denarius of Severus Alexander (AD 222-35) of a type dated in the British Museum Catalogue to AD 232. Although a well produced and dangerous counterfeit, the forger has nevertheless failed to capture the true style and fabric of the original. The reverse die in particular is rather sketchily rendered and the edge of the flan has far more uniformity than is normal for Roman denarii of this period. The metal has a modern look and, although not a significant factor in determining authenticity, the weight of this piece is lower than one might expect for a denarius in this state of preservation."

Second coin is a COPY. "This is a modern (late 20th century) die-struck forgery of a silver denarius of Severus Alexander (AD 222-35) of a type dated in the British Museum Catalogue to AD 232. Although a well produced and dangerous counterfeit, the forger has nevertheless failed to capture the true style and fabric of the original. The reverse die in particular is rather sketchily rendered and the edge of the flan has far more uniformity than is normal for Roman denarii of this period. The metal has a modern look and, although not a significant factor in determining authenticity, the weight of this piece is a little lower than one might expect for a denarius in this state of preservation."

Third coin is an authentic ancient coin (RSC 161c).

The Fourth coin is a COPY. It is a cheap Bulgarian struck copy I bought on Ebay as a copy.

Harlan J. Berk's Findings

I then sent the two first coins to another well respected firm that had multiple experts examine the coins. The firm was Harlan J Berk and the experts were Harlan J Berk and Curtis Clay. Their opinions were that both coins were absolutely authentic.

I quote them: "Examining them with a magnifying glass, my immediate judgment was "100 % authentic", and this was confirmed and strengthened by microscopic examination and comparison with our photofile. The style is perfect, the edges exactly as expected, the surfaces show signs of oxidation and a few tiny remains of deposits. I see no reason whatever to doubt their authenticity! The cleaning and light weight of the one coin and the somewhat fuzzy coloration of the other are perhaps what inspired these doubts. I nevertheless remain convinced that both coins are perfectly authentic: the type details, sharpness, style, surfaces, and edges are all unimpeachable. "

They called and discussed their finding with David Sear and both understood the other's positions but stand by their own finding. So who is right and who is wrong?

Metallurgurical Findings

I was extremely fortunate to have a Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engineering/Materials Science with extensive ancient coin knowledge examine the two coins in doubt. He offered to an X-ray fluorescence spectroscopic examination of the coins. These results were compared with his database of similar authentic coins and the results of JPC Kent and other experts. Here is an example of the Metallurgurical Test:

Click on it to see the full image. Here is more on the test.

" I look at several things. These include the approximate level of debasement by comparison with other coins of similar vintage. This percentage of silver measured is not exact since corrosion, patina, etc. can effect the results somewhat. Nevertheless, the results do tend to correlate rather well with published values.

Also, I am looking for the presence of minor amounts of gold, tin, antimony, lead and other elements. Invariably, gold is found in ancient silver. Gold is not present at detectable levels in modern silver (unless intentionally added) because of its high value. [Our refining technology is far superior to that of the ancients.]

Obviously, if the coin alloys are not correct, it is unlikely that they are genuine. If the alloys appear to be correct then the items are probably (but not definitely) real. Basically, this is because some forgers have been known to reuse ancient flans to frustrate processes such as I've described. Nevertheless, the technique can provide a very useful check on an item."

What were his results?

"The lighter of the two (2.24g) [Coin 1] compares very favorably in composition to denari of Caracalla (50% Ag), Elagabalus, and some other Severus Alexander denari that I own. The silver is debased with lead and copper as it should be and contains a substantial gold presence. I sent along examplar sample spectra (including your coin) which will readily show the similarities.

The second coin [Coin 2] was a bit tougher to examine.   It is debased silver but some surface enrichment of silver is apparently present as evidenced by its greyish patination. Spectrographically, it initially appeared to be of purer silver than it should be. This result basically reflects the surface sensitive nature of the X-ray fluorescence technique.   However, when compared to a comparably patinated Gordian III denarius I own, the debasement levels were found to be similar.   {To remove the surface enrichment would have required surface alteration and is not at all justified given the lovely characteristics of the coin.}

There is also evidence of light wear on the reverse suggesting it circulated briefly.   At any rate, the silver is also substantially debased with lead and copper as expected and contains a significant gold presence as well.   If it is a forgery, the celator/metallurgist has really under-estimated his own talents and I'd dearly love to go into business with him making Julio-Claudian denari.   Obviously, I believe it to be authentic from a metallurgical stand point.   I'll leave it to others to assess its stylistic merits.

As a final caveat, I have not yet assessed the numerous Bulgarian fakes for sale.   As such, I do not know that concerted efforts have not been made on the part of the Slaveis of the world to duplicate the exact composition of the coins they forge. However, the equipment needed to assess their success generally costs over $100K and I doubt they're much worried about people doing this sort of analysis one they've sold a coin. Such fakes as I have seen were readily distinguishable from genuine coins as the silver has appeared entirely modern in origin.

Enjoy what are two coins that I'd purchase without reservation knowing what I now know about them."

David Sear's Response

"I have read with interest the metallurgical report on the two pieces which I condemned. Although I am certain that the examination was conducted in a thoroughly professional manner, and the technical finding are scientifically correct, it in no ways persuades me to change my opinion on these coins which is based on more than 40 years experience in the field. Although such examinations undoubtedly have a place in the struggle against deception, I am yet to be convinced that the interpretation of this valuable data has been refined to the point where it can lead to the unequivocal condemnation or acceptance of a particular piece. I believe my view is backed up by a number of cases over the past several years where the scientific evidence has been in direct contradiction of the consensus opinion of experienced dealers and has ultimately been proven to be quite misleading and wrong in its conclusions. I rest my case!"

Additional Experts

I brought the two coins to the Boston Coin show and passed them around to various ancient coin dealers at the show. They reviewed the two coins and everyone felt that they were genuine. One dealer / author noted that he could understand why someone may question the coins but felt that they were genuine.

My Results / Feelings

Being the owner of the coins, it is my responsibility to take all the opinions offered and make my own decision on the coins. I first have to say that I appreciate all the opinions that everyone has offered. My belief is that the two coins in dispute are REAL.

I am basing this on a few factors. First the excellent and in depth examinations by Curtis Clay and Harlan J. Berk. Secondly the extensive metallurgical examination done. Lastly, I have examined the coins against those in various references. I have to say that the low weight does not concern me that much because authenticate ones as low as 1.89 - 2.05 are noted in BMC.

In regards to style, I have found all of the same characteristics that others pointed to as wrong in other known authentic coins. For instance, I found that the first coin to be extremely similar to BMC 830. I realize that 830 is an aureus, but in regards to style, obverse and reverse legends, and die axis; I find it an extremely close match. If the second coin is fake, I believe that BMC 830 also must be. The high gold content of the metallurgical report can be explained by the die being mainly used to strike aureus.

Lastly, why would an counterfeiter go to such extensive work to match the metallurgical characteristics of such an inexpensive coin? I don't see someone melting down another ancient coin to strike a Severus Alexander coin worth $70 when they could put all this hard work into a much more expensive coin.

It is therefore that I return the coins to my collection and consider them Authentic.

Summary: Coins 1- 3 are authentic. Coin 4 is a Bulgarian struck copy.

Comments??