So I was doing some research on another thing, and I came across a very unsettling realization while trying to find pictures of an authentic Julius Nepos AE4 First off, as many of you are aware, Emporium Hamburg is generally considered to be an on-the-level dealer of authentic ancients, but they also assisted in moving many hundreds if not thousands of fake AE4s in the style of many famous rarities, Julius Nepos among them. I am about 95% sure this coin is a fake Unfortunate for the buyer, but then I noticed this one from CNG, who most of us wouldn't even think to question: Definitely not the same coin, but definitely a die match to the fake, with the tiny portrait, retrograde obverse legend, and I think the monogram is a match, too. Increasingly, I'm beginning to fear that there is no such thing as an authentic Julius Nepos AE4 monogram
Guilt by association- https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...de=1&fr=1&it=1&es=1&ot=1¤cy=usd&order=0 1) Emporium Hamburg has sold more Julius Nepos AE4s in the last ~9 years than all other auction houses combined in the last 20 years 2) I am confident that nearly all of those are fake, given the same patina, the same "wiry" engraving style, too detailed and deliberately crude to be an authentic AE4 of the terminal empire 3) See this thread: https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=353775 A known ex-Emporium Hamburg coin of Aelia Zenonis had its entire surface "dissolve" revealing that it was a bronze slug with the portrait and monogram added on with some sort of plastic 4) Hamburg has sold hundreds of these tiny AE4s, all extremely rare and expensive types (so rare that one might expect to see approximately 2-3 per decade across all auction houses), all in the same general art style, and they keep listing them despite their hammering at half or less of the FMV of a genuine example. Why wouldn't the consignor try their luck at NAC or Heritage or any of the other houses that attract eyes with big wallets attached? The simplest explanation is that all of these coins are fake. The CNG coin is an obverse die match to a fake. It *could* have been used to create a die to make fakes, but IMO that seems unlikely to me.
Yep, they are pushing these fakes for many years. It has been pointed to them many times, they withdrew some lots when pressed, but next auction same story again. It is quite obvious that they have some business interest in these fakes, professional dealer cannot be that ignorant. I personally stopped purchasing rare monogrammed nummi from Europe due to this flood. Only Middle Eastern origin, and preferably with some provenance.
I think the Emporium coin is definitely a modern forgery. We've discussed that before. They sold tons of forgeries of similar style spanning several centuries. This is one of them. I'm not sure regarding the CNG coin though. Is it really a die-match to the Emporium coin?
@Tejas I would say so - Extremely distinct bust size and shape - Same shape N - Same shape E with a distinctive curved bottom - Same shape P Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm inclined to say that the CNG coin is a forgery from the same die/mold as the Emporium Hamburg coin.
Interesting observation. Of course I agree that Emporium Shamburg has been selling these fakes for years... they're instantly recognizable. I always thought they were re-striking slugs and that the raised parts were original metal, very interesting to read (at the link you posted) that at least some of the raised parts are organic. (@TIF, do you know if the sintered metal clay you used to make some Iguanasus coins would dissolve in acetone, at least partly?) I agree the two coins are a close match and so somehow related. But I do wonder if the CNG coin was maybe used as a source. It obviously has way more detail and doesn't have the telltale fabric present on all the Shamburg coins. It wouldn't be surprising if, at least at first, the fakers worked from original coins. The Shamburg example is from early in the run of these. I would say they've become progressively less careful to model them after genuine coins, perhaps to avoid just this kind of transfer die match. It would be interesting to look at some of the other types they've faked and see if there are original models for some of the earliest productions.
In my opinion, the two coins are definitely NOT die matches -- at least not double. (Just compare the placement of the letters in the legends, the angles of the lines in the monogram. Four different dies made these two coins.) EDIT: Okay, too strongly stated, too quick, at least on the obverse. I overlaid them on photoshop and those obverse appear to be the same. And the reverse appears to be the same. Double die match. Concerning! You're absolutely right about Emporium Hamburg's output, though, and to keep a critical eye on these coins generally. EH's countless late AE4 rarities are way beyond what I would consider credible! They are responsible for the vast majority of the very late rarities in ACSearch. Often numerous coins that have never appeared in another auction. And all appearing very similar in style. Their pedigree in a later sale is a big red flag. There have been lots of online discussions of this, as I'm sure many are aware. I don't know if the CNG coin is real but I wouldn't have doubted it -- beyond the fact that I do feel a special skepticism for any tiny crude AE4s (much as I love those coins; I've got dozens or hundreds I pulled from group lots over the years and decades, most of which I still can't definitively ID). I also highly skeptical of many of the attributions. (As Rasiel Suarez wrote about in his blog post on "The Avitus Problem" [a related CT discussion here] a few years back I think.) But I would feel much much better about the CNG coin. To me nothing jumps out as obviously wrong with it, and it's much more convincing that the E-H one. EDIT: Except that I now see it's a die match. I'd really like to know how the E-H ones are produced. They have a very distinctive look. (Maybe they start looking like the CNG but then they're always heavily weathered to look rough?)
I agree they're a die match (edited above after overlaying). It could be that there was only a single pair of dies for the genuine coins of that issue, so one will see a die match between all the fakes AND all the genuine ones. I haven't tried to check that. As to whether they could ALL be fake, I wonder when they are first cited in the literature. Everyone just cites RIC X (published in 1988). Were they known before RIC? That's what's weird. The E-H ones seems to be made with epoxy or something (assuming the reports of dissolving in acetone are correct, which I'd heard before). They all look the same, I wonder if they all dissolve? But the CNG one looks much more like it's made of actual metal.
The organic binders in precious metal clay would burn off before the metal sinters so if you're wondering if an acetone soak would make a metal clay coin fall apart, no, that wouldn't happen.
