Greetings. I already posted this ancient Greek coin within a thread titled " A coin that spoke to me". It is a silver tetradrachm of the famous Owl and weighs 16.63 g. A well-known member of our site noticed that the coin belongs to the first earliest series which was issued in the sixth century BC. He said he had suspicions about the authenticity of the coin and asked to open a thread with it.. As a matter of fact , this coin had been confirmed" perfectly genuine" by one of the most famous international experts in archaeology and namely ancient coins . He had already published many books and well known catalogs about ancient coins in the United States and throughout the world. In his Written certificate, he affirmed that this coin was the" receptor for another donor coin". He insisted on experience, science and patience to clean the reverse of this primitive and historic coin. I count on your opinions and expertise to clear up this matter. Thank you.. Charles
I am not the expert you are looking to hear from, but IMHO this coin does not look authentic. All the features are to "fuzzy". Perhaps it is just the image, but I thought the same thing when you presented it the first time in the other thread. A famous quote from the movie Ronin comes to mind: "Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt. That's the first thing they teach you." I hope I am wrong.
" Actually, it is fine style just badly cleaned. It was the receptor for a donor coin in an electrolytic context while buried. It's hard to get those deposits off, but can be done with patience and experience. It looks perfectly genuine to me." I just quoted , word by word , the certified answer of the famous archaeologist on March 2009. What would you kindly comment , please? Charles
You have the opinion of one expert, any opinions expressed here would be secondary. Ask yourself if the first expert you asked told you it wasn't genuine, would you get a second opinion? Having the first tell you it is genuine shouldn't deter you from seeking a second opinion. You must have some doubts or you wouldn't ask. BTW, I would LOVE to have the coin.
Nice and clever comment KY. Hope to read more answers tonight before I start posting other coins. This one appears to have been engraved in the sixth century BC. I can't imagine holding it in my hand. It's just as if I have History being felt and possessed.. Sorry. Charles
Since I was the person who contacted Charles about that coin I should elaborate a little about my concerns I guess. I was, and I'm still, not sure about its authenticity. First thing that attracted my attention, as Bing pointed out, was the surface "roughness" (pics not clear enough to see if the metal "lumps" are benign or not imo). Started researching around among fakes and found the following... Apparently of the same dies and, looking only at the reverse, exact same centering and flan shape. Researching some more I found several others, some of which combines either the obv. or rev. with other dies... Reverse... Obverse... Now, the biggest problem here for me is... Are these dies modern or ancient ? Reid Goldsborough, on his site (where the last example came from), suggest that they are modern... http://athenianowlcoins.reidgold.com/forgeries.html On FAC, where the 2nd example came from, it is said that the coin in question is a "...cast forgery made with molds created using the lost wax method" (derived from a "genuine coin")... http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-915 Then there's the light weight which, alone, would not be that troubling... But combined with the other evidences ???
Even if authentic, which I highly doubt, this coin would not be from the earliest series in sixth century BC. Sorry but whoever told you that doesn't know what they are talking about. This is not in the early archaic sixth century BC style. Not even close. I've posted this before. But here is my early archaic c. 506-480 BC owl. Note the differences. Yours would be from the issues of c. 449-404 BC, if authentic. But again, I doubt that it is.
Don't know if others contacted Charles about this coin, but I'm not the one who "dated" it... Just for the records...
What are we to do here when someone posts an obvious fake but is not willing to listen? The further matter of its style being a poor copy of the 5th century and nothing like the sixth (the correct one being shown by tenacious) simply adds to the warning that one should not listen to an expert who proclaims his own expertise. I am no expert. I would not buy this coin for its melt value assuming it is silver or for that matter assuming it is pot metal. I know we all would love to know the name of the expert who confirms this coin. Perhaps we know his many books.
I've been sitting back waiting for better photos of all three sides of the coin. Hoping 7Calbray can take some better photos so I (everyone) can learn more from this example. (Me thinks it looks like a chewed-up example of the fake Dionysos posted).
I express thanks to all who contributed in this thread, especially fellow Dionysos. Maybe I should not blame the expert who assumed authenticity of my coin since he was judging scans of a supposedly modern forgery by that time- 2009. I also present my decent apologies, hoping to catch up a genuine owl next time. Until then I wish you all good night or good day Lols.. Charles
Charles... If, by any chance, you can take higher resolution pics of the coin... I, and others I'm sure, would be interested in seeing them, in any case... I would really like to be proven wrong
