Antimagic field suppresses magic. It does not block it. So I think this behaviour makes perfect sense.

@JoakimM.H. "lightly edited" my answer with that new consideration, thanks for pointing it out.

I think the answer would be improved without the strike-throughs. If you're trying to convey a chain of logic, it would be more clear to just state what you consider to be the fallacious argument. If you're showing edits, there's no real point in doing that, as it just makes the answer less clear. If you look at other answers, strike-through is pretty rare.

I’ve removed the strike through text. We can see what you’ve changed in the answer via revision history.

@Jack yeah I was too lazy. Thomas, you made your edit while I was rewriting the whole thing but I think I followed the spirit of it anyway :)

"(not that there would be any active magic presenting itself there)" This brings up an interesting side question. Effects from artifacts and deities can exist in an antimagic field, as a special exception. Would they be detectable with detect magic?

Perhaps a good example would be how Fireball or Lightning Bolt interacts with AMF: the AMF carves out a chunk of area where damage doesn't happen, but the spell effect exists on both sides of the AMF after being generated only on one side. With Lightning Bolt, it's clearly not going around, just through but without manifesting any effect while inside.

@JoelHarmon there's a reason why AMF is maybe the #1 topic on this site lol. I'd say no though, because detect magic does not get an exception so those artifacts are not in the effective area of DM (even though they're inside the range)

IMO, this could benefit from a little more direct answer to OP's final question of "Will the caster be able to see a faint aura around the magic item?" Is the answer "Yes, there will be an aura because it 'bears magic' even though the effect of that magic is suppress right now because of the AMF"?

@EngineerToast it very clarly and succinctly answers OPs title question which then directly answers any secondary questions.

I think the ultimate conclusion of this answer is correct but I don't like the language used in the bold header at the beginning. Detect Magic doesn't 'penetrate' the AMF, it simply exists, and the AMF suppresses Detect Magic from having an effect on anything inside it.

@TylerH it is an area centered on the caster and because AMF doesn't block it it penetrates. Sure, technically it's just already there, but when talking about barriers (or not) you draw a line from the caster to the spot in question and if there's no valid barrier it reaches that spot and detection works there. That's how you do it while playing on the table.

@Hobbamok Since the description of AMF explicitly says spells or spell effects don't protrude into (a synonym for penetrate) the AMF, and the glow effect is a visible/line of sight spell action effect, then RAW it is not visible from the other side of the AMF. You're of course free to house-rule it otherwise.

@TylerH uhm, no, protrude is absolutely not a synonym for penetrate. Penetrate explicitly refers to the space behind the subject (the relevant word being through), while protrude always comes (implied or explicitly) with "into" because it focuses on the space inside the subject. You could maybe argue that penetration requires protrusion and imho you're right. It just doesn't matter because Detect magic is inside the AMF area, it's just not showing it's effects there. So even if they were synonyms, "Detect Magic is protruding into the AMF" is technically a correct statement itself.

@Hobbamok Protrude means to stick into or out of something. Penetrate means to pass into or through. When talking about a barrier, the two are absolutely synonyms. Detect Magic's direct effect, which is sensing the presence of nearby magical items telepathically via divination, does work inside an AMF. However, the glow is explicitly a visible secondary/optional spell effect, not a telepathic/divination effect. The magic glow would be "suppressed" for any item inside the AMF, because AMF, or on the opposite side of an AMF from the caster, because that's how seeing things works.

@TylerH " Detect Magic's direct effect, which is sensing the presence of nearby magical items telepathically via divination, does work inside an AMF. " with takes as hot as this one please just write your own answer where you can use whatever wording you like. Because I absolutely disagree with this wild interpretation. Spell effects are suppressed in an AMF. And that includes detection. Again, don't even respond. Write your own answer and don't bother everyone else.

@Hobbamok I mean, if you want to focus on the ancillary aspect instead of the actual point of contention here, sure, you are wasting your time. The point under discussion here is whether the object on the other side of the AMF field is visible, not whether specific (detect magic) trumps general (AMF).

@TylerH buddy. That point is not under discussion anymore. My answer closed that discussion. You agreed that it does. You only nitpicked about wording. You did not question my actual conclusion. You did not offer any actual point of contention whatsoever besides being robotically inflexible &wrong with how language works. The specific vs general magic was never ever in question whatsoever (until your random ramblings that is), not that either AMF or DM are really more specific than the other. PLEASE JUST WRITE YOUR OWN ANSWER if you have anything to say (which you clearly don't)