Antiochos X Eusebes-- cast fake?

Hi guys, this is a sale by Holding History that is hosted by Agora. (I am one of the principles of Agora) I will call David Vagi of NGC and then follow up with Nathan and this group.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great to hear Agora is being proactive about this. I just registered with Agora yesterday and I feel better about doing so now that I know there is follow through on issues like this.

 

Ok, spoke to three of the world's experts on fakes:

David Vagi
Barry Murphy
John Lavender (Lavender is an expert on Seleukid coins)

All three say it is fine. In fact, Barry says the obverse die is a match to the plate coin for this example in SNG Spaer.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

Well, if that's the case then I guess we all have some egg on our faces.

 

Also, waiting on details, but it was part of a big collection that had been displayed for about 50 years.

I will post whatever information we get.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

No worries. That is what I am here for.

No one is perfect, so we take concerns of fakes very seriously and like to err on the side of caution. Fortunately in this case I was able to get expert opinions before the sale closed.

Normally I would agree that slabbing companies are useless. But NGC Ancients is under the management of Vagi. I trust him and know that while not perfect very few things get by him.

If you guys knew the trouble he goes through to keep up with fakes your jaws would drop.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the followup!

 

I viewed this coin in hand several months ago, before it was in a slab.

The coin is not a cast.

As for style, you can compare this coin with Spaer 2791, which is possibly an obverse die match is a slightly later die state. I have attached a photo of Spaer 2791.

The slightly odd appearance is a function of the photography and the light reflecting off the plastic.

Barry Murphy

 

Thank you @Barry Murphy, for clarifying. Oh, and welcome here.

 

Ditto!!!

 

Thanks, Barry.

For ease of viewing, here is a full view of the cited coin, with the OP coin above.

 

Far be it for me to question the experts that have provided clarification on this coin, and here I'm going to show my ignorance, but these look like completely different coins to my untrained eyes. The second I would more likely buy than the first. Where am I going wrong?

 

I certainly don't know but am reinforced in my lack of interest in later Seleucid coins. Dealers and those who run slabbing services have to go out there one way or another and declare for or against a coin. The rest of us can see something we don't like be it for beauty or questions of authenticity and just walk away.

Now that is a new feature for those who prefer their coins unslabbed to consider. We knew slabs make it harder to see and for amateurs like me to photograph the coin but I never thought about it contributing to the look some will read as fake. From the photos I never would have suspected these were the same die.

 

I'm going to add my 2 cents as I love . It comes w/the learning process.

IMHO, that coin looks like something crude enough to be a counterfeit made 50 years ago! While I respect the three experts and know one of them, that coin should be sent to the British Museum.

My opinion as an unknown poster should go in one ear and out the other BUT in my defense, on two occasions in the 1980's, ancients that I condemned as forgeries (against the opinion of many well regarded ancient dealers of the caliber that attends the NYI) after examining them with a stereo microscope were sent to the British museum and condemned as very deceptive "new" counterfeits. Just saying...

I don't authenticate ancients by photos but I see more "bad" than "good" on this piece and chances are it would "fall apart" if I examined it closely.

 

Well, looks like we all screwed up.
And this is why I should only stick to verifying Late Roman coins!

 

I'm not throwing in the towel just yet. I highly respect those that have opined in support of the OP coin, but I still find this coin visually problematic. But hey, don't listen to me. I've been fooled the other way around more times then I care to count.

 

I'm with all of you!! Looks like a totally different coin, even 'cleaned' and especially the reverses---the spacings are completely different, with or without my glasses ....I'd still lean towards a replica and two different dies..

Edit: Obviously I was referring to the two obverse dies as being highly unlikely matches...The reverse has to be different dies regardless...IMHO
But I'm the least likely to ever be considered an expert in any area of numismatica LOL

 

Hello Everyone,

I just got home and was able to read through the thread. This coin definitely looks a lot better in the hand, I had difficulty photographing it in the slab. In the past I have usually broken them out first, so slab photography has proved a learning curve. Recently I have been leaving them in and letting the buyer choose whether they want to crack it out.

I appreciate all of the comments, as well as the verification from Barry, John, and Alfred. I always examine coins very closely before I list them, and my rule of thumb is if I have any doubts, I don't list the coin. If a coin does turn out to be a fake, I will always contact the buyer if it has closed, or withdraw it if it is not, so I appreciate TIF and Alfred contacting me on this.

Thanks!
Nathan

 

I am the very last person to confirm or condemn a coin, I just don't have the experience. I didn't like the coin when TIF first posted it, I still don't. Even with the wear, I see differences that would make me think that this is not a die match.

Hands up if you know how many coins in all the museums in the world are fake coins?