Fake Athens Owl?

A friend purchased this piece recently and sent me the picture - admittedly I'm not well versed in the series but it struck me as highly suspicious. Any thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am far (far far far) from being an expert. However, I share your suspicions. I don't like the sprue, the pimple(s) or the color. I would be looking all over the fake lists & I would only buy it from someone trusted & with a guaranty.

Check it with a magnet & get the weight & check into the coin's history. I can't wait to see what someone that knows the coin series will share here.

 

Here's a link to a page about fake owl coins .
http://rg.ancients.info/owls/forgeries.html

 

I can't claim to be an expert either. Shouldn't the "O" have a dot in the center, to make it theta? Other wise isn't it just an O?

 

If your gut thinks its fake, it probably is.

 

I do not think I can call myself even remotely an expert on these as I own only one. However, if I am forced to make a call, I would say fake.

Also, here is the image of the reverse of my owl with the Theta "dot" plain to see:

 

Were the flans for these tets cast on a tree? Seems odd that a forger would leave such a blatant sprue, assuming that's what it is.

 

Is the 'sprue' actually part of the coin or has this one been removed from some attachment or mount? The sprue looks all wrong for either a real or fake owl but in either case the coin is damaged goods.

 

Interesting observation but my tet is also without a dot. I'm not aware that this is necessarily a counterfeit diagnostic.

 

Many good coins lack the dot.

 

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. The owner of the coin has already sent it off to NGC so we'll have to wait to hear back from what they say.

 

I thought I was on to something

 

Yes. Lack of the center mark in the theta cannot be used as a diagnostic. There are way too many good coins without it to be useful.

My suspicions with the coin would focus on the incomplete beginnings and ending of the crescent on the obverse. It appears very much the celator of this one had never seen an owl with a full crescent, so did not know what that shape was supposed to be IMO. The sprue I have no idea what to think of unless its horn silver or remnants of a mount. A real tet would never have a casting sprue I do not believe.

 

I agree but still have not received an answer to my question above on whether the so called sprue was part of the coin or just added or sticking to it. I suspect the coin will come back genuine but with added material from a removed mount. I even suspect the discoloration around the sprue is from the coin being heated with a torch when it was mounted. Of course, you can NEVER tell a coin is genuine from a photo. You frequently can tell a coin is not genuine but it is an art to expertise a coin when you have the thing in hand so you can never expect 100% accuracy from working with photos. I do not see anything about the style of this coin that makes me think it is other than a genuine classical period owl or a mechanical reproduction of one.

 

Excellent point about the "sprue". I hadn't viewed it that way.

My point about the headdress was addressed to the marks above her bangs. That seems unusual.

 

AJ, do you have any followup on this coin? Did it get sent to NGC and is it authentic?

 

I never followed up with my friend - I'll drop him an email and let you know!

 

It's not uncommon that the dot, an indentation on the die, gets filled with silver from a previous strike and it sticks there. Following strikes will be missing the dot. You can see this on authentic coins so it's not an indication of a fake.

 

Just heard back: it came back as "Questionable Authenticity" and not slabbed.

 

Hmm hmm.