I picked up these 2 coins at an estate sale and I'm trying to identify them and find out if they are authentic or reproductions. Any help/info would be greatly appreciated!! Here's what I think I have figured out about them so far: One has the head of Herakles on one side, and Zues seated with an eagle in one hand and a septer in the other. Under the eagle there appears to be a bat and a M and underneath the throne there is what appears to be a crown. one is a silver stater coin from Phaistos from what I have found online. Looks like it is Talos on one side and a cretan bull on the other side. It weighs 10.5 grams with the bezel. I am planning on taking them to tested by XRF , does anyone know what the alloy breakdown should be if it is authentic??
The first is supposed to be a tet of Alexander the Great, the second I do not recognize the obverse. However, both have similar flaws indicative of casting like mushy details and casting bubbles. Therefor I believe both are cast fakes.
I have to agree with @medoraman. I do not think either is authentic for the same reasons he pointed out. Sorry. I hope I'm wrong. BTW, welcome to CT @EcoEstate
I'm not so sure. I don't know anything about the second coin, so I'll confine my argument to the first. I think what appears to be mushy detail is just a result of wear. If you look at where the top of Zues' right forearm meets the background, it seems like a pretty sharp contact. The same with Appolo's nose on the obverse. It doesn't confirm that the coin is original, but I don't think you have cause to just dismiss it out of hand, either. Where do you see casting bubbles? BTW, thanks for the nice high resolution photos.
As previously stated both coins are cast fakes made for jewelry. The first is a copy of an Alexander III tetradrachm, the second a copy of a Phaistos (in Crete) stater. Barry Murphy.
Look like cast fakes to me, with mushy details. Also it looks like a casting seam on the bottom edge of that Alexander tet from about 4:00 to 7:00.
Barry Murphy, wow I am honored you are part of CT sir. I have been a big fan for a long time. The Phaistos stater must be a very rare coin. I have seen the reverse, but never that obverse, not to say I am an expert in Greek coinage.
I would point out the lack of detail and mushiness on the protected areas. That is the first thing I look for. Its very true detail could be lost on high points due to wear, but the protected areas should not experience that. The fact it does is proof. Also, look at his cheek. That is a large area of casting bubbles. They usually appear like this on higher areas of relief due to the flow of the bubbles in the metal. Not to be unfair, but if you are collecting ancient coins you should be able to see this is a cast. This is not a very deceptive coin due to the obvious flaws. I would suggest looking at this coin and some equally "worn" Alex's that are good coins until you can easily tell the difference. Like I said, I am suggesting this for education, as I was there once and couldn't tell a cast fake, (of which ancient collectors will see a lot of in our collecting career), as easily as now.
Actually, I was wondering about the marks on Herakles' cheek. So those are casting bubbles? I'd assumed that casting bubbles would be round. I thought I was pointing out some sharpness in protected areas. Would Herakles' eye be a good example of "mushiness" in a protected areas. What are some other good giveaways?
I would say look at things engraved at lower resolutions and check its level of detail. Look at the control mark under the throne, a classic marker on this coin because of how the throne is so much higher. All control marks there should be in excellent condition. This one is mushy and lacking details. Things like a drop off from an arm to a flat field is not very indicative, I look at protected engrazing that will be the last to wear if indeed wear is the reason for lack of detail. I have some ancients that might grade VG with excellent detail in protected areas. Its not easy. Things that can look similar are worn dies or corrosion. These can look similar, but with study one can learn the differences. I am sure a nice member like @dougsmit might be persuaded to write a nice thread showing the differences.
That is not going to happen. The worst thing about learning anything is that you are bound to discover just how much more you need to learn. On fakes, I have three levels: Coins I know are 100% fake, coins I know are most likely (99%) genuine and coins that I have an opinion on but realize that I could be wrong. I'd say at my stage in the hobby this last group is about 1%. How many of my 2016 coins are mistakes? 1 or 2, I can survive. Dealers and 'graders' need to be careful not to wrong a coin that is just 'probably' OK. I can and do just walk away. In many cases, fakes are outed more by a bad feeling that come from something just not looking 'right' but not something that can be explained in a way that would mean anything to others. I am now at the point that I get more enjoyment out of the hobby not worrying about the matter but just sticking to buying coins about which I have a good feeling. Unlike professionals, be they dealers or NGC 'graders' (there has to be a better term), I do not have to 'rule' on every coin. I can just buy coins I like and consider errors I make part of the cost of doing business. I suggest that you who are new to the hobby adopt a system of vetting coins for purchase proposed by Joe over on Forvm. "Either know the coin or know the seller." I could lay down a dozen things to consider when trying to sniff out fakes but I believe that would cause more people who read it to make mistakes than it would help. If I say anything that makes you think you are safer, I am doing a disservice. I suggest looking at thousands of coins, handling as many as you can. Pay attention to photos of real and fake coins and learn what you can about how they were made and how they might have been affected by a couple thousand years of abuse. Look at them from arms length and up close. Don't just dwell on whether a coin might be fake but on what it is that makes that coin what it is (style, surfaces, fabric, feel, smell). The two coins that started this discussion fall into the category "smell to high heaven". This is a combination of texture, detail and words I simply do not command. Lets say you are not comfortable spending money on beautiful and genuine coins. Hire someone to help or buy junk for study. That means buy from a trusted source and leave the bargains to those of us who realize we are going to make a mistake now and then. Don't expect to become a pro-level expert in everything overnight or in fifty years (I did not). Do the best you can, find people you trust and remember the rule about knowing the coin or the seller. Expect to pay both in cash or effort. See, I told you I couldn't do it. Part of me would like someone to look at my collection and tell me which 1% they don't like. I wonder if they would be the same 1% I would flag. I wonder if I had 10 experts each flag 1% how much the lists would agree.
So i got the coins XRF'd and here are the results for anyone who was interested. the coin with the cretian bull is 89.5 % Ag 9.4% Cu and 1.1% misc. metals the coin with seated Zues is 86% Ag 12% Cu 1.2%Al .5% K .17% Pd Not sure if that info means anything to anyone, but I thought it was interesting either way....
