All from
Mike Davies of "antiquiti"

So how rare can they be!!!??

ALL FAKE of course

Artifacts need not be imbued with loads of intrinsic value to be meaningful. Even mundane objects like a disposable chunk of concrete are capable of evoking thoughts and imagery of vanished people and places. These objects are of value not because of their historical importance, but because they represent a hearkening to some indeterminable point of contact with things now lost – a yearning for situations and societies that ONCE WERE but are apparently NO MORE. Mental journeys to people, places and events that, in their totality, remain forever outside our grasp. This is because regardless of what we accrue, our insights into past people and places remain entirely relative, like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant. One touches the side, and declares it like a wall. Another touches the trunk, and declares it like a snake. A third grabs the tail, and declares it like a rope. These assessments are accurate, based upon individual perception and experience. But the elephant is none of these things. The three wise men remain eternally insensible to the animal’s true nature. Our need to understand the past should be tempered by the realization that, as a species, maybe we were never designed to see the elephant. But our need to know are cultural and biological imperatives.

Gaius

Sorry but if you know the person who finds these items, how can you not know Yorkantiquities which is this person's shop where he sells these items?

I agree with much that is stated here, though I confess to personally knowing the original finder of this "opa signinum" who is a detectorist and ancient history enthusiast of long-standing and considerable experience. A great many of his finds have (like this) been non-metallic and identifiable based on the context in which they were found. I note also comment to the effect that yorkantiquities (whom I do not know and have no connection with) mainly purveys genuine artefacts (albeit perhaps pricey in comparison to their intrinsic value). However, I do understand that when an item is subtracted from its context, provenance becomes a matter of trust, in which case "caveat emptor" as the Romans would have said.

I know very well that the Romans were great builders and are considered the inventors of concrete (I'm Italian). The problem with this object is that if you read it carefully it is described as "having a part of iron incorporated", so I made the joke that "Roman reinforced concrete" was put up for sale. From what you can see and the dubious provenance it could also be a remnant of an old building or taken from a construction site