I know there are maybe a handful on the group who can offer opinions on these (myself one of them). @TypeCoin971793, what is your opinion on these two?
Sorry, Ken, I am a novice in this area. I rely on you when I buy from your site. So, I am in a learning stage.
Authenticity, yes. I have the attributions, both are very rare. I had posted both at charm.ru years ago. Mixed results. Many experts saying good, then some saying bad. Its a conundrum with Chinese coins. As they are all cast the methodology for identifying a fake is completely different from European coins. Often the factor lies with the patina. Soft patina is usually fake, hard is genuine (both are hard and crusty).
What type of issues are they? If they are from a usurper or a smaller kingdom I wouldn't have a problem with them. The shen seems off for a major mint, but that is just a gut level reaction. This is for the first coin. The second seems to have a better shen.
Liang Dynasty (?), circa 6th Century AD Æ23, 3.6 grams Obverse: Xu Zhu. References: Zhongguo Guqian Daji, pp279 Zhongguo Qian Bi Da Ci Dian---- Liang Dynasty, Emperor Wu, 502 - 549 AD Æ13mm, 3.6 grams Obverse: Da Ji Wu Zhu. References: None known. This type is primarily known from contemporary literature as well as a mould excavated in 1935 (showing four lines radiating from the corners of the central square). The dating and attribution of the type is contested, though odd variations of the Wu Zhu mostly appear in the North & South Dynasties period of the 5th to 6th Century AD. It has been theorized that this type is not a coin but rather a charm of the period.
I *think* they're both okay, with greater confidence in the first. At least, okay enough to warrant a closer look. But that's just a gut feeling. These are definitely too difficult to authenticate by photo. Does the Paris collection have any to compare to?
I would be with Bill. Liang was a smaller kingdom with usually cruder coins. Knowing that I am more comfortable with them, though not an expert.
I was doing a forum search, and I have no idea how I missed this. @Ken Dorney These are both very rare as I have not ever seen either of them. I am inclined to think the first one is genuine because the patina matches that of a ca 550 AD hoard I went through. It was excavated from the Nanjing River. Was yours found in a river, at least supposedly? The second one gives me pause. The Xu character is much sharper and less worn than the Zhu character. Also, the patina around Xu has a different color and texture. I just get a bad gut feeling from this coin, so I am going to way that this was a Wu Zhu that was altered into a much rarer coin.
Ive had them for so many years I cant remember where they came from, but I have also handled many water found coins and this one also has that look. They are often brittle and break easily. But the Xu Zhu was found by me mixed into a large hoard of about 1,000 normal looking Wu Zhu's (I dont remember the exact type or period). Other than that I dont remember much. I have also heard this explanation (offered on the charm site). I am told that it is possible the Xu character is modified or added completely, as this can be done using a mix of genuine coin patina and crumbles mixed with glue and then applied. Supposedly if this is the case one can boil it in water and it will dissolve. I have just never taken the time do do that (not to mention I dont want to damage it in some way if it is genuine).
That patina / deposit type is very genuine.... see it alot on Byzantine cup coins which have been found in damp soil.
The beginner question that keeps me from having a great interest in such coins is how are you to tell the status even a common coin that has been cleaned. Sure you can say that no one would clean such a coin but a "Xu Zhu (that)was found by me mixed into a large hoard of about 1,000 normal looking Wu Zhu's" could very well be batch processed into a patina free coin (like the BM's Domitian II antoninianus) before anyone saw it was different. How, then does one know the status of a cleaned coin like the common ones below? It makes no difference, I suppose, when we have a $1 coin but are all Chinese rarities either original surface encrusted or fake patina encrusted so a "cleaner" would be assumed fake since it could not be proven otherwise?
The easiest way to tell if a coin has been cleaned is if brown bronze is showing in the fields, or if there is "brassing" (causing the copper to look "red" again) on the high points of the design. Your Huo Quans have been cleaned. The dirt has been cleaned off your Wu Zhu (you would expect there to be dirt if the coin was found in the ground, right?), but the patina is untouched. When patina cannot be used for authentication, one has to use calligraphic style, the presence of wear, minting style (crude, artfully-made, etc.), metallic composition (sometimes the color of the metal can give away fakes), and overall fabric of the coin in question.
This is not a sure way to tell. I have found coins which have brown bronze showing in the fields and these have been dug up after being buried for 2000 years. Truth is, there is no real sure way to tell and as most coins on the market have been cleaned....we just have to rely on style etc.
