Antiochos X Eusebes-- cast fake?

David at NGC has seen this thread and NGC stands behind the coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Read up on the Dominion War of 2373 - 2375. We gave those changelings quite a whopping

 

Ah, a trekker thing. Not watched it in a good few years.

 

I will jump to another story... I am Vorlon.

 

I am not sure on the die match (don't have Spaer here right now), but I trust John, Barry, Vagi and myself as far as saying that the coin is stylistically fine. The crud on the coin and the toning in addition to the photography through plastic explains all of the concerns. I see no "pearling" as was described by AncientNoob. No evidence that it is a cast.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

I just discovered this thread and have to say my first reaction to the OP coin was that it looked genuine. I've seen a few of these later Seleukid tetradrachms and I tend to agree with the "experts" who have weighed in.

 

As the only one here who saw the coin before it was slabbed, I can say without doubt the coin isn't a cast. David Vagi saw the coin as well.

Concerning the die match, I said possibly a die match. When looking at photos you have to look what's the same more than what's different. The tilt of the coin, angle of the light and other factors all effect the photo. I've seen two photos of the same coin that don't look like the same coin due to lighting differences. Doug can attest to that. Other factors like wear, strike, corrosion can also make two coins struck from the same die appear different.

Concerning these two coins, the hairs are all in the same positions, and most suggestive to me of a die sharing is the small lump on the bottom of the single hair strand that crosses the diadem. This is not a standard feature and suggests to me these coins may be the same dies. There are some differences which most can be attributed to lighting and tilt. If I have time I'll get the spaer coin and reshoot the photo at an angle similar to the slab photo. I'm moving in 2 weeks so I may not get to it before I move. I'm not 100% convinced of a die match but I think it's a possibility. The reverse die is not a match so that's not an issue. Even if not a die match, the style is the same which eliminates the style argument for this coin being a forgery.

Concerning blob or whatever, I have no idea what the poster who said this is referring to.

The original complaints about this coin were related to style. Now that the style is shown to be consistent with coins of this issue, I'm not sure how anyone can say for sure if the coin is fake or not from a rather average photo shot through plastic. Unless of course you've seen the coin in hand like David Vagi or myself have.

Barry Murphy

 

@Barry Murphy Wrote this:

Concerning the die match, I said possibly a die match. When looking at photos you have to look what's the same more than what's different. This is true as we are making a comparison. For two coin dies to MATCH (accounting for wear, corrosion, debris, etc. that may be present) they should MATCH at the least 95%. Actually I'm being stupid here while trying to be charitable. Actually, THEY SHOULD MATCH 100%!The tilt of the coin, angle of the light and other factors all effect the photo. True I've seen two photos of the same coin that don't look like the same coin due to lighting differences. True Doug can attest to that. Other factors like wear, strike, corrosion can also make two coins struck from the same die appear different. Absolutely true.
Concerning these two coins, the hairs are all in the same positions, and most suggestive to me of a die sharing is the small lump on the bottom of the single hair strand that crosses the diadem. This is not a standard feature and suggests to me these coins may be the same dies. There are some differences which most can be attributed to lighting and tilt. If I have time I'll get the spaer coin and reshoot the photo at an angle similar to the slab photo. I'm truly sorry to say this as there is no nice way to do it: You need glasses. These coins are so different that if you trained a monkey, rat, or pigeon (100 times) to get a reward by viewing the OP's coin, and then showed the animal both coins it would choose the OP's coin - GUARANTEED! I'm moving in 2 weeks so I may not get to it before I move. I'm not 100% convinced of a die match but I think it's a possibility. Thank God, you may have redeemed yourself. The reverse die is not a match so that's not an issue. Yeah! I apologize, I take back everything I wrote about monkeys, rats, pigeons, and glasses. Even if not a die match, the style is the same which eliminates the style argument for this coin being a forgery. That's nuts! The style of the OP's coin is a crude, juvenile attempt at artistry. If this coin is genuine, perhaps the die is tribal/barbaric or done by an apprentice.
Concerning blob or whatever, I have no idea what the poster who said this is referring to. Let's start with the SECOND COIN used for comparison. Note how the engraver carved the design. The hair, eyes, relief detail is smoothly defined on the struck coin in spite of some circulation. Examine the deep recesses (smooth) of the design. Additionally, its surface shows old crystallization (a good sign) even though it is slightly corroded.

Now, let's examine the OP's coin. Some here including me (with less knowledge and experience than the three experts) regard the coin as a QUESTIONABLE specimen and would not touch it. That's OK, it's a personal thing; however, I should like to get educated with a better answer than "I've EXAMINED THE COIN AND IT IS GENUINE AND NOT CAST."
In post#42, I asked a simple question? What do the "blobs" of "extra metal" stuck in all the crevices of the coin look like. Are they smooth or rough? This has not been answered. Let me explain THIS PARTICULAR characteristic often found on genuine ancients so you'll understand what I'm asking. After a collector examines enough ancients they will notice places on the die that broke away in a fashion that causes the struck coin to have raised, pitted, rough lumps (blobs) in the deep recesses of the design such as the eye (common). In cases of counterfeit coins, when this characteristic is present, the "blob" is usually smooth due to casting or the manufacture of transfer dies. Let's look at the questionable specimen above. It's surface is COVERED w/little whitish "blobs" trapped in the recesses of its design. Do you see what I asked about now? Are they smooth or rough? If they are smooth, the coin is probably a fake and should be sent out to another expert for verification. If I don't get a reply, perhaps one of the members here can try to find a pedigreed coin the actually HAS THE IDENTICAL STYLE of the OP's specimen.

The original complaints about this coin were related to style. Not mine. That was only one problem. Now that the style is shown to be consistent with coins of this issue, Absolutely not true. There is ONE coin shown here that is an artistic, stylish example that is in NO WAY EVEN CLOSE in style to the questionable specimen. I'm not sure how anyone can say for sure if the coin is fake or not from a rather average photo shot through plastic. IMO, the photo through the plastic is EXCELLENT - good work. Unless of course you've seen the coin in hand like David Vagi or myself have. I'll bet neither you nor any other expert who authenticated this piece as genuine bothered to look at it using a stereo microscope. FOR SHAME! Get that puppy to England so we can all learn something.
Barry Murphy

 

I won't comment on whether the obverse dies match, but Insider said:
"The style of the OP's coin is a crude, juvenile attempt at artistry."
I am not a specialist in Seleucid coinage, but I have been a collector and dealer for 30 years. I have seen many Seleucid tetradrachms and my experience is that the later tetradrachms are always of a "crude, juvenile...artistry", especially when compared to the early and middle issues. The style is typical and the coin looks genuine to me.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.ht...es=1&currency=usd&thesaurus=1&order=0&company=

 

I wouldn't buy it but I'll take Barry and David's word for it being a struck ancient coin, since they've seen the coin in hand. I still think it was artificially toned or had a thick layer of toning that was very awkwardly cleaned, leaving those thick, black highlights that make it look fairly ridiculous. I bet if you removed those it wouldn't look half as bad.

 

Well if none of us bought it, then who care, right? We don't have to worry at night whether it's real/fake & that's all that matters, it wasn't our money.

 

Thanks, I looked up a few of these coins also. I should not classify/describe any I found or those shown here as anything except "artistic." None appear "crude" to my uninformed/uneducated eye.

 

Nicholas Molinari wrote:

I wouldn't buy it but I'll take Barry and David's word for it being a struck ancient coin As it very well may be as I have not seen a "quality" cast fake ancient in decades., since they've seen the coin in hand. I still think it was artificially toned or had a thick layer of toning that was very awkwardly cleaned, leaving those thick, black highlights that make it look fairly ridiculous. In the past, we called the thick, black, toning SHOE POLISH. I bet if you removed those it wouldn't look half as bad.

All kidding aside, Perhaps the OP would take a toothpick and see if he can push out some of the black residue and "pimple-like blobs" to make sure the "toning" is not a residue. I still would like to know if the pimples all over the coin are smooth or rough. Start with the large lump at the mouth.

 

The so called blobs of extra metal that appear white in the photo are not blobs of metal, they are waxy deposits that can easily be picked off with a fingernail, I know because I picked one off just to see what was underneath.

The dark toning was most likely applied.

You can believe what you want concerning the authenticity of this coin. I saw the coin in hand out of the plastic, looked at the edge and looked at the surfaces with a 16x magnifier, and in my opinion it is not a cast.

Barry Murphy

 

I am just a curious sort and REALLY appreciate you taking the time to educate me. The fact that the blobs are wax that can be removed, along with the expert opinions pushes the balance toward genuine as you all have the coin in hand. The white, spread-out deposit in the eye made me wonder if that was a residue but the smooth blobs were a problem and virtually always indicate a fake.

If the coin were mine, I would have removed the very detracting white deposits. Nevertheless, I wish I had that DIE STRUCK coin under my microscope. THANKS AGAIN!

 

Unfortunately when a dealer gets a coin on consignment or a coin is submitted to a service like NGC we usually can't mess with someone elses coins...



Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

Agree. I wouldn't buy it, but I have a lot of respect for these guys. Their reputations are very well known across the numismatic world.

 

You or your company MAY wish to try this as it works for me every time I do it: Contact the customer and ask him if you can "conserve" his coin to raise its eye appeal and possible get a higher offer in the auction. In almost fifty years and probably close to a thousand cases , NO ONE has ever denied my request.

Perhaps NGC should try it too.

 

That is not their business model. The certify, grade and encapsulate coins. Sure, they also have a division that conserves (I think) but they are being paid to provide a specific service.

Same with us. We handle 300+ lots every two weeks. Sometimes we ask for permission to use a silver brush. Sure, I could remove thick toning, clean a coin under a microscope or otherwise improve 50% of our lots. But that would triple the time it takes to get a sale up.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk