A 50-50 coin?

There was a point made in a recent thread about having coins in our collections whose authenticity we may never be certain of. Here's one of mine, a rare stater from Argos Amphilochikon that was part of a mixed lot I bought earlier this year.


AKARNANIA, Argos Amphilochikon
Circa 350 - 270 BC
AR Stater
7.15g, 21.1mm
Calciati pg. 524, 6 (same dies).
O: Pegasos with pointed wing flying right, beneath dog lying right, AP.
R: Head of Athena left; AM above helmet; behind, tubula and A.

When I weighed it at 7.15g, I was concerned about how light it was and wrote to the seller seeking some advice on its authenticity. I accepted the reply that this was not out of line given the corrosion, smoothing and possible crystallization.

I then posted it on Forvm (with the purpose of getting some attribution help rather than authentication confirmation), where a member wrote back saying he was "98%" certain it was a cast fake. He pointed to the low weight (at least 1g off the average for this standard), what looked like a casting seam around the edge, and a "molding defect" around Athena's helmet. Even as there were a few other members who chimed in and agreed with him - one pointing to the apparent lack of the typical concavity on the reverse - there were others who were not so certain that it was a fake.

I had originally pegged this as a 50-50 coin, but after the discussion on Forvm I think it's now more of a 70-30 coin... leaning towards it being authentic. I'm comfortable with never being 100% on this coin... it's a interesting type in its own right, and more so for the discussion on authenticity that it has provoked. With that in mind, I'm posting it here because I thought it would be fun and educational if anyone wanted to share their opinions. I'll post later the thoughts of those on the Forvm thread who thought it might not be a fake and why.

Edge shots:



Additional note of curiosity : nobody has been able to say for certain what a tubula (the symbol on the reverse) is. Embrace the unknown, I suppose!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I managed to find "tubula" illustrated in the Mycenean world, but not sure what I'm looking at, some arrangement of the stars, or a template for navigation?? Someone else can take over here!

http://tinyurl.com/l6fmosq

 

I think that tubula may belong to the Micronesian world instead, but thanks anyway... that looks like yet another interesting book I'll never be reading .

 

Well, maybe, but as you read further and further, it keeps coming back to the Mediterranean, and the Greek triremes, and celestial navigation with this tool, where "apparently," if you looked through the little tubes and saw certain stars or constellations, you knew where you were. The librarian at the Naval Academy ought to know all this.

A maritime victory by the Greeks, commemorated on a coin, could very logically involve the tools and inventions that made it possible, as well as in the sense of giving thanks to the gods. Bon voyage, it's 4 a.m.

 

I'll caveat this by saying I'm no expert on fake ancients. But I see no evidence of this coin being die cast. No seam on the edge, no bubbling or tell-tale surface defects, at least to my un-trained eye.

I've found these links to be a useful guide to spotting fake ancient coins. You may already be familiar with them but they are a good start, with basic tips and high quality photos.

http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/fakesgiveaways.htm

http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/cast.htm

 

Have to confess I only scanned another 5 pages or so after the star compass picture but found no other instances of the word. Could be wrong in my conclusion that "Tubula" here is Micronesian and referring to a series of compass points rather than an object?

One suggestion on another forum was that tubula was a kind of (tubular?) quiver.

Have a good morning!

 

Thanks, Race. I've gone through those pages before, but still, being a relative novice they certainly bear re-reading!

 

Z- I missed that discussion on Forvm. Very interesting! As you determined, having Barry Murphy's opinion was valuable and definitely sways the odds in favor of authentic.

One of your edge pictures show what appear to be crystallization in the largest crack/pit. I don't think that can be faked, so for that reason alone I lean towards authentic.

Before I read the description and discussion I thought that was a hippocamp on the obverse

 

Interesting! I'm going to have to take a closer look at those cracks. But yes, it was nice having someone like Barry Murphy weigh in, and even though he didn't categorically say he thought it was authentic, his opinions in response to the fake flags that were raised were good to hear.

 

The poster who was pounding the Fake nail seemed determined to stick to his opinion regardless of anyone else's valid points. After several such responses it was difficult to give his opinion much credence.

Correction to my initial post: crystallization could be "faked". I've worked with silver precious metal clay a few times and if the firing temperature is just right, it induces crystal formation. It's also porous. It might be possible to mimic ancient silver coins with metal clay. For size, the coin would be underweight, porous, and possibly crystallized. I don't think your coin is made from silver clay though.

 

Can someone provide a link to the FORVM thread? I can't seem to find it.

 

I had trouble finding it too and didn't recall seeing it on the Authentication board... because it was posted on the Identification board

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=100733.0

 

Thanks TIF. Well, Barry Murphy at least confirms what I thought looking at the pics in this thread. I see no casting seam. They're usually pretty obvious, even when they've been filed.

 

There is no obvious seam I can see on the coin in hand, though something does seem to have been done to the edges. I'm thinking that may also contribute to the lack of much concavity on the reverse, which is usually very pronounced on these staters. Barry Murphy's explanation that it may in fact be due to Athena's big head was enlightening!

 

I cannot help to enlighten you one way or the other, but I will say I could easily have been fooled by this coin if it ever turns out to be fake. It's a beautiful piece.

 

I'm in the camp that says the coin is authentic, but over-cleaned. It looks like it's been scrubbed of horn silver and/or other deposits, and that could account for the weight loss and rough surfaces. I saw a handful of coins in similar condition in Baltimore - nicely detailed coins too, but time did not treat them well and cleaning treated them even worse.

I realize this coin came in a mixed lot, so this is no criticism of your buying decisions, but the best advice on the FORVM thread came from Arminius: never buy silver coins that look like this. They always leave you wondering.

 

Whilst I may never have bought a coin that looked like this if I had actually seen it before I became its owner, real or not I feel no ambivalence over giving it a permanent home. And quite apart from the fact that I'd feel silly sending a $35 coin to David Sear, why rob life of all its little mysteries? I don't mind at all wondering over this piece from time to time .

 

I think Doug may have said recently something to the effect of crystallization being difficult but not impossible to fake? Apologies to Doug if I'm not remembering this correctly. I'm wishing now I had a microscope to examine the coin closer. The best I have is a 10x magnifier.

 

Yeah, you're right of course. It's not like I haven't got my own box of mysteries.

 

I see no reason to send the coin to Sear. I see nothing that I can not accept as a genuine coin that has suffered greatly. I disagree with Barry Murphy less frequently than anyone I know.