1. Thank you @pprp for bringing this fake to our attention. 2. If the auction house does not withdraw the piece, it would be helpful if someone posted the name of the auctioneer. 3. For those interested in fakes of this coin, there is a long thread with many examples posted at https://www.lamoneta.it/topic/161817-tetradramma-leontini-boehringer-55/ Again thanks, D
Quick question, how would you be able to tell for this paticular coin? It doesn't look casted, maybe the details are too sharp for it's age (especially the intentionally placed wear spot by the Lion's nose on the reverse)?
The coin has not yet been withdrawn, however I am unsure if anyone has notified the auction yet so that may be the reason. As I'm unsure of the rules regarding posting links I'll simply say that this coin is Lot 130 in an upcoming Swiss web auction posted very recently and from an auction house with which I'm sure most if not all posters here are familiar. Good catch BTW @pprp, it seems a number of less discerning bidders haven't looked into this coin as closely as they perhaps should given the sums involved.... I may be wrong but I believe the telltale sign for these "wet-head apollo" tets from Leontini is a die-break found in the upper part of the cheek near the eye, a hoard of these was found in the 1980s all with the characteristic die-break, and from the 90s onwards very high-quality pressed and struck fakes have been making the rounds, discernable through the lack of said die-break (though I'm sure by now there must be forgeries WITH the die-break recreated and that's a whole other can of worms). Edit: given the other posting about a fake it seems links are allowed, so here goes. https://leunumismatik.com/en/lot/28/130/
No I haven't. This is probably the most expensive in their entire Greek section so they wouldn't list it unless they believe it's genuine.
The die break you are describing was thought to be a characteristic of genuine coins but it exists in fake coins as well. One of the signs it's a fake is the dotted border that is more dense than the original. The coin was also sold in auctiones 7 back in 2012.
The one from Leu is quite easy to spot and i guess they will quickly withdraw it. With 4050 coins for sell, the odds in favor of several of them being forgeries are high...
Don't hold your breath. It's nearly the same team who sold the coin in the past in auctiones and there is a certain Italian dealer who doesn't accept the dense dots argument.
I remember that 15 years ago the way to distinguish them was the "eye flaw" thing. The OP coin doesn't have it, so it must be a fake(?). The four other examples showed above have it: authentic (?). I'm just wondering if since that time counterfeiters have not adapted with dies with the flaw ...
There are at least two known fake dies without the "eye flaw" and one with it. Of course not all the coins without the "eye flaw" are fakes. I have myself one without it for comparaison.
Coin Talk colleagues 1. I am very interested in hearing from those more expert than I on why this piece is authentic or false. In my opinion there are so many negative factors that I think it is a modern counterfeit. 2. Here is what I understand are negative points. While each one (other than the number of dots) might not be conclusive on its own, in my opinion they add up ... a) No die flaw behind eye, although there is one in the hair b) Smooth edges c) ‘flat’ treatment of Apollo’s face d) No small die break from top of Apollo’s hair to edge e) More than 17 dots from the tip of the nose to the main point of the wreath. f) … and although not conclusive, I have never seen a reverse leaf (behind the lion) struck in such a manner. 3. I am very interested in members' comments and reasons. D
