Okay. We need to talk about Katz...

All of this is the reason I am concentrating on stamps these days.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would argue one should "know the coin AND know the seller." That way, you're confident both in the price you paid and whether it's genuine.

In terms of the provenances, in my previous reply I did verify one, and they don't look like the same coin (at least to me). Think about it: if I'm aiming to fool someone spending a few bucks on a late roman coin, I can just throw the coin out there. But if I'm instead planning to defraud someone of thousands of dollars, I need to make the ruse stronger.

I would therefore make my fakes out of real silver/etc and die match them to some known coin. I'll choose coins that were sold at auctions some time ago because a) those auction catalogs may be difficult to find and the images vague and b) the owners of those coins are less likely to notice.

The buyer then, who would have hesitated buying so pricy of a coin from an obscure auction house, will jump at a coin with a respected provenance.

 

Sorry to drag this on, but I also disagree with the attitude that "OMG what's happening to this hobby. I'm so sick of it."

First, there are many reputable sellers out there. If you know your coin and you buy from one of these sellers, your odds of getting a genuine coin are high.

Second, yes, there are morons out there who are easily parted with their money, and it's not just coins. I invest in apartment buildings on the side and I've literally seen people waste millions of dollars on properties that aren't worth it, but con artists convince them to buy.

However, those people are idiots and you're not. You spend $100 on a nice 2000-year-old denarius and they spend $8k on a 2020 Serbian/Bulgarian lump of silver. As long as we identify these companies in threads like this one, we'll be fine.

 

Lansky is offering a lot of coins with somewhat unusual style, which raises suspicion.

What also raises suspicion are the good provenances, often leading back to highly reputable Swiss banks and auction houses:


Lot 188 - Bankhaus Hauck & Aufhäuers, 1998 (14) lot 521
Lot 184 - incl. Adolph Hess & Bank Leu 1969 (41) lot 600
Lot 180 - Bankhaus Hauck & Aufhäuers, 1998 (14) lot 521
Lot 129 - Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 1986 (5) lot 446
Lot 125 - Tkalec 1992 (23 October) lot 265
Lot 121 - The Numismatic Auction 1983 (2) lot 298
...


I find this a bit odd, but it is of course possible. Is anybody in a position to verify these provenances?

 

I really don't mean to offend anyone. But... if one thinks a forger can make an accurate fake die from a picture, or photograph, and go on to strike fakes with the correct style?

I would think one would be very seriously underestimating the difficulty involved. Of course it's different if the forger has the coin in hand.

 

To my opinion it is just the photos - here and everywhere else
Lot 57 was offered in Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 13, 2006, Lot 120. Unsold at 1.100 USD. Perhaps they just took the description from Muller.

Nevertheless will I not spent a penny or cent in this auction.
As with many others of those curious new auction companies popping up this one definitely has a certain haut gout

 

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but can not resist. Let me recap the last two pages: All coins are fake ("benefit of the doubt"), the inability to compare a coin on two pictures of different lighting and style make a coin suspicious and other people are idiots, but the posters here are not?!

Sorry, I am usually not sarcastic, but the last two pages of this thread are just ridiculous. None of the coins cited by @galba68 are forgeries IMO. They all look perfectly fine from the pictures. Some are of somewhat unusal style, yes, but still in the range.

I can well understand the fear of forgeries (especially after what happened at Katz). But one should try not to fall into paranoia and see a forgery in each and every coin. This is just as damaging to our hobby as the actual forgeries.

 

money laundering could explain some of the absurd prices realised on their previous auctions...

 

They fit. Why should they be suspicious?

 

If you have verified the provenances and found that "they fit", then we have no issue.

It may be that Lansky is selling a collection that was assembled some time ago by someone who bought preferably or exclusively from Swiss and German banks/auction houses which are now defunct and from the Belgian Tradart auction house. As I said, that is possible.

 

Yes, thats what I meant by "they fit".

I see you added Tradart in your reply. Lansky mostly sell coins acquired in the past from Tradart. Tradart in turn was buying those coins in various Swiss and other auctions.

 

To state that somebody or somebody's opinion is "rediculous", i.e. laughable, comical or absurd, is not sarcasm. Some very experienced collectors have voiced concern about some of these coins. That should be taken seriously, even if it turns out that all coins are just fine, as may well be the case.

 

That is great, so the provenances are genuine. Thanks for checking that. I could not find them as most of them date to the 1990s, 80s and earlier.

 

"suspicious..Lots 108, 109, 112, 116, 121,125, 129, 180, 184, 188.."

I looked into a few of the pedigrees given in the Lansky auction. I have a lot of old auction catalogs and was able to look some up. They are all as stated. This is strong evidence that the coins are genuine.

Lot 109 really is NGC 4787403-001, as asserted.
Lot 110, a Tiberius denarius, really is Numismatica Ars Classica 1989 (1) lot 791, as asserted..
Lansky lot 112, a Nero as, really is Frank Sternberg 1986 (18) lot 428, as asserted.
Lot 125 really is Tradart 1993 (3) lot 232, as asserted.
Lot 129 really is Tradart 1992 (2) lot 200, as asserted.
Lot 180, really is Bankhaus Hauck & Aufhäuser 1988 (5) lot 514, as asserted.
lot 184 really is Adolph Hess & Bank Leu 1969 (41) lot 600, as asserted.
Lot 188 really is Bankhaus Hauck & Aufhäuser 1998 (14) lot 521, as asserted.

Lot 116 was "Acquired from TradArt" and not asserted to be in a particular catalog. For those of you who don't know, TradArt was a firm with very high-end coins.

 

I assume many/most of the Lansky coins are legitimate, although I have serious concerns about the seller themselves and therefore won't be bidding.

Just a reminder though that a good provenance is no guarantee of a coin being genuine. Here's a Constantine I SPQR solidus currently for sale:

https://www.sixbid.com/en/inasta-spa/8573/-/7138152/romane-imperiali-costantino-i

Provenanced to G&M 159 #474 (2007).

Unfortunately this is a known modern struck fake, with the dies having been published by Prokopov.

 

Not the voiced concerns are ridiculous, but that it went from "They look suspicous" to "Maybe for the benefit of the doubt we should just assume they all are [fakes]?" with no real reasons given definitely is.

 

Of course they are as asserted. Their research into the coins is thorough and the coins are of high quality and overwhelmingly genuine.

This thread is about a series of fakes in Katz who doesnt seem to know anything about ancients (or purposely sells fakes). Then some guy pollutes the thread because "he" found a fake in Lansky. Congrats! And another one starts developing on how many suspicious coins are in there without at least veryfing the pedigrees (not that the pedigrees automatically mean they arent fakes). And yet another complains about a wrong attribution of a coin that is an error related to the next lot being from Lyttos.

BTW, Tradart is still conducting business although quite leisurely lately.

 

I do apologize for jumping the gun here. The following was my thought process in casting doubt on this auction.
- Several other members cast doubt on the authenticity of multiple coins
- The auction is based in Estonia
- This is a new auction house
- The business was registered as an LLC in Serbia 6 months ago
- Two coins I am familiar with have irregularities
- The business owner was arrested for money laundering in antiques last year, though he was cleared.

The above facts led me to cast doubt on the entire auction. Clearly, though, we should look past small trifles such as arrests, and instead fall back to the extreme respect Serbian businesses have in the ancient coin trade. Therefore, my conclusions truly must have been ridiculous as you have said.

It also appears that I was incorrect in disputing the validity of these coins' provenance. Therefore, there certainly cannot be anything amiss with this auction, as their lengthy numismatic history and integrity are without parallel.

 

You're ignoring the fact that a dealer's location in Eastern Europe -- in this case, first in Estonia, then in Serbia -- justifiably means that there are two strikes against them in terms of inspiring trust and confidence among ancient coin collectors. And I don't think that's unfair, given that out of the thousands of fake ancient coins for sale on ebay, 90% appear to be offered by sellers in Eastern Europe, particularly Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. In this case, the assumptions of dishonesty have been shown to be incorrect, given the confirmed provenances. But that doesn't mean it was wrong for people to be suspicious in the first place. If the same dealer were located in the UK or France or Spain or Germany or the Low Countries -- by which I mean, actually located there, as opposed to pretending to be in Western Europe but sending their coins from Eastern Europe -- and were offering the identical coins, I doubt anyone would have questioned them.

 

@kirispupis, I understand your logic, but you are not helping anyone by condemning authentic ancient coins and you are not doing justice to the coins either.