Rough Surface vs Cast Bubbles

This one has the characteristic bubbles, particularly on the reverse, but it is cold-pressed from cast dies. The reverse is a match to a known Dimitrovgrad forgery. I also got this coin at vcoins, from a reputable dealer who immediately refunded me. Sometimes one just slips through the cracks, even among the best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

ATHENS ATTICA
AR Tetradrachm
OBVERSE: Helmeted head of Athena right
REVERSE: Owl standing right, head facing, on overturned amphora; to left, eagle standing right on thunderbolt; Gamma on amphora, ΗΡΑ in exergue; all within laurel wreath
Struck at Athens Epigene-, Sosandros and Eume(nes)-, magistrates 127/26 BC
16.8g, 30mm
Thompson 477a

 

What was the verdict on your Tet @Bing ?
I must've missed that thread. Overall it looks "ok" to me, but my gut says it isnt.

 

OK, how about this one?

 

It's authentic. The wholes are not casting bubbles, but, I believe, were caused by mineral deposits.

 

That ones cast right?

 

@dougsmit This one is cast. Bubbles on the obverse behind the head and a few more on the reverse above the arms and to the right of the spear

 

Genuine coin but applied patina? Something sure doesn't feel right about the fabric.

 

I agree cast. But it's pretty good cast.

 

Sorry to be late to the party and you guys took the fun out of it for revealing the answers so quickly. Some comments...

Curtisimo posted: "One of the main features coin experts use to determine a coin's authenticity is the surface. However, a lot of people who are newer to collecting ancients (including myself) have a hard time distinguishing between a rough surface of a genuine ancient coin and the tell-tell bubbles that give away a coin as a cast fake!
I thought it would be fun for some of us to post photos of a coin and the group can weigh in on wether it is casting bubbles or rough surface."

These are two different characteristics that look nothing alike. No need to explain what a rough surface is but the evidence of a casting (not as common as most decent fakes are now struck) are the raised seam joint on the edge, casting gates on the edge, smooth ROUND raised pimples or smooth ROUND depressions. There can also be a microscopic granularity to the surface or the surface is wavy (tooling can mimic or hide this characteristic).

John Anthony posted: "Cast coins do not always have the characteristic bubbles." True. IMO, his coin is a counterfeit.

I vote counterfeit on this one. Hope I'm just blowing wind.

IMO, this coin is a fake! The patina has also been applied to the coin. Note the bright brass color on the edge where it has chipped away. The round lump next to the "P" is the red flag that kills it.

 

Welcome Insider! Better late than never

I know that this is true to the trained eye. However, I've been reading Classical Deception by W.G. Sayles and it got me interested in looking at photos of casts and I found that I had trouble identifying the cast marks on rough coins. So I came on here to talk it out with you fine gentleman and ladies.

So you think the coin in my original post is a forgery?

 

I don't think I need say anything on this one

 

I apologize for posting my cast fake Probus to this thread before the discussion was finished on the original Alexander which I thought had been declared fake. This is a fine idea for a thread but we need one coin per thread and start another so it is easier to keep things straight.

The Probus has raised pearls and a few hints but the biggest problem it has is a family of twins posted to some of the regular forgery sites. It is great to be able to sniff out bad coins from their characteristics but it is also good to remember to look for help in the mistakes made by others.

 

Bing,

I have cleaned many coins where one side was smooth and nice and the other was badly corroded. Often the difference in the two sides is even more pronounced than your example. I always wonder if the bad side was facing down and got more wet or was in contact with other coins or metal that caused the corrosion.

John

 

@Curtisimo

IMO, your coin in Post#1 is genuine. Cast coins do not generally have the type of fissures on your coin's surface.

 

What a great thread!!!

Surprisingly to me, I seem to have 'guessed' correctly this time around but even the genuine examples would've given me pause.....

Not too long ago I posted this practice photo of a coin I purchased from a very reputable dealer decades ago and magnified it which then exhibited what many of us consider 'casting bubbles'...but are they???

Obviously it's an AS
of Agrippa with the Neptune reverse:

And there are no visible casting seams on the edges.....

 

Okay I'll be the first one to give this a shot. It looks cast to me but something about your post leads me to believe I'm missing something. The letters on the obverse also look off to me. They look a bit too uniform in both size, style and strike.

 

I vote cast only because of the bubbles (I'm probably wrong).

 

Well, At this time I still don't know myself since I never actually looked at it with a loupe and only as it appears in hand for years after I acquired it. I'd 'vote' cast if I ran across it today but when I purchased it from Wayne Phillips sometime around 1990 I just assumed it should look a bit rough and accepted it was a bit harshly cleaned (and therefore cheaper) than others I had seen and could afford.

I posted it because I thought it's a good example of what probably is a cast but may not be....if only because it was purchased from an experienced dealer. Until I took this magnified 'practice photo' I never thought it anything but genuine and 'environmentally' altered a bit--- the 'bubbles' barely noticeable to the naked eye suggesting only a rough surface....

I was hoping someone more adept at this sort of thing could help clarify the issue. I think it's one of those that fell through the cracks (cast) but haven't bothered to send it off to someone to be certain to date.

Hmmm, Perhaps I shouldn't have posted without having a definitive answer

 

Well, I wrote rather extensively on the subject, but the site seems to have eaten my responses.
Most of it had to do with a website I will recommend:
http://tinyurl.com/j3qhh8d
This is a full diagnostic system. It starts from the premise that although you can show that a coin is likely to be a modern copy, it is impossible to PROVE that a coin is authentically ancient.
This site presents an exhaustive system of checkpoints - and tells why each is important. The final chapter is the "grading" of the likelihood of a coin being modern which weights each of 44 possible, observable points as to how important each is.
Originally written in Spanish, the translation is a bit rough - unintentionally humorous here and there, too - for those fluent in Spanish, the original site can be reached at: http://tesorillo.com/fakes/indice.htm