How do we know it is fake/real?

We spend a lot of time on CT discussing coins someone sends in for us to tell them whether it is real or not. In many cases we can say with certainty the coin is fake because it shows a characteristic that can not be disputed. We regret that the opposite is not true; we can never say with 100% certainty that a coin is genuine seeing only a photo and some coins will never be certain even if you have the coin in hand and have years of experience. There have been serious disputes between experts on a few coins (remember the first appearance of the Black Sea Hoard fakes almost 30 years ago).

Another coin forum put a request on their fakes section that you not give opinions/advice over your level of expertise. Coin Talk does not do that and we will have conflicting opinions or 'nice coin' posts on most questionable coins. Many of us will look at a coin and say "doesn't look right" but have trouble explaining exactly why we are suspicious. I am that way much of the time and am glad that I can just walk away from coins I don't like without having to explain why. For this post, I have selected a coin that might serve to illustrate questions. I'm not saying whether I believe the coin is good or bad. I am sure that some of you will dismiss it as a fake and others will say you see no reason to suspect it. You are allowed to change your mind; I'll change mine if you give information I have missed either way. I checked a few but not many fake coin lists and did not find a match. That could mean the coin is good or it could mean I should have checked more.

Philip I Billon Tetradrachm, Antioch, Syria. AD 248. ΑΥΤΟΚ Κ Μ ΙΟΥΛΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟC CΕΒ, radiate and cuirassed bust left / ΔΗΜΑΡΧ ΕΞ ΟΥCΙΑC ΥΠΑΤΟ Γ, eagle standing right, with wings spread, holding wreath in beak. 11.17g, 27mm, 7h. The coin has considerable dark deposits on top of decent billon. The deposits do not come off easily but are distinctly different material and texture from the lighter color coin below.


It is always good to look closely at the coin which is hard to do with these tiny online photos so I'll post a section of the obverse that will cause some of you suspicious types to wonder why I showed THAT part. I'll tell you that it is just a part with face and letters showing and that you should not think I saw something there you missed but who knows if I missed something in it that you saw.


The last image is the AHA or not depending on how you interpret what you see.


This paste up shows file marks on the edge (bad sign). It also shows fissures that goes across the edge without being interrupted by a central ridge (good sign). The photos show glare in spots that are much more pronounced in the photo than on the coin. Lighting coins so there is no glare is hard. Each playing the game will have to decide if the scratches were made to conceal a casting seam (bad), to make the flan more even for striking (not bad), to make the coin fit in a hole for use in an ancient standard (good) or jewelry who knows when (depends on when). The edge tone seems to match the silver tones on the coin but the only deposits on the edge are in crevasses. Whether the edges or fields are retoned is not immediately obvious. Whether this tone is old as in 1 year, 100 years or 1700+ years is not necessarily proof that the coin underneath is from that same age bracket. All ancient coins have been cleaned; some retoned. Most fake ancient coins have been treated to make them look old. What does all this mean here? Nothing? Everything?

It is very hard to say anything describing the coin that will not tip off how I feel about the coin or be deceptive dragging red herrings across your path. The point of this thread it to illustrate to beginners thing some of us look at when vetting our purchases. I'm not telling where I obtained/who provided this coin to be photographed. You might be, rightly, influenced if I said it was sold by a major firm or by a street urchin in Antioch. Life is not that easy.

Comments? Feel free to post images of Antioch tets that thrown light on the matter (for example what an Antioch edge should look like) but lets hold off on showing every coin in our collections that do not pertain to the questions brought up by the coin in question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I say fake.

 

Looking at the facial closeup is appears to be evenly worn down as if done by artificial wearing, but maybe the photo is deceiving? Overall it looks cast with an applied patina, however I'm not going to condemn it without seeing it in person under magnification. Then again I do that with every coin I check out regardless.

 

I say wasted post.

Now that I got that off my chest, I say genuine. My qualifications: I have none at all. After the excellent OP that can educate all of us, I hope the rest of the posters on this thread BACK UP THEIR OPINIONS with sound reasons.

I'm leaving work and shall revisit this thread later to back up a hastily made "gut feeling."

PS I've never seen one of these before and should not believe a billon ancient should be this thick!

 

To me, it looks OK. My Herennius Etruscus has a similar file edge, but Curtis confirmed to me it was Ok when I asked about it when I got it long ago.

I have a similar left facing with porous surfaces.


Philip I (244 - 249 A.D.)
Syria, Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch
Billon Tetradrachm
O: ΑΥΤΟΚ Κ Μ ΙΟΥΛΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟC CΕΒ, Radiate and cuirassed bust left seen from the front.
R: ΔΗΜΑΡΧ ΕΞΟΥCΙΑC ΥΠΑΤΟ Γ, Eagle standing right, wings spread, head right, wreath in beak.
ANTIOXIA/S C in two lines below.
Antioch Mint, Stuck Year 3 246/247 A.D.
11.7g
26mm
Prieur 359

 

I am totally clueless on this, but look forward to seeing what others say.

 

Personally, I do not comment on real or fake coins. I am an end-consumer in this Hobby, so I do my own research, listen to the experts, and try to make informed decisions for my collection. But, I reserve my opinions about posted coins. It is not worth making a false or rash statement and needlessly giving the receiver a false opinion, especially if it is being based only on a picture and some verbiage. I have been collecting Ancients for about 25 years, and I still consider myself a rank amateur. I have no right to mislead an individual unless I am truly qualified to make an opinion. Ergo, this will be my only opinion whether a coin is fake or not.

 

...and that opinion is?????

 

What I have stated. I will not give an opinion.

 

Man, you are a really "deep thinker."

IMO, it is also a shame as you seem to have a lot of knowledge to share. As I wrote to you in another thread, we are very different. I still play "Guess the Grade" on CT and can back up my opinion yet I am rarely correct. In spite of that, I'll bet/hope other members get some additional insight from my opinions.

 

well, i'm glad i read this thread.

i thought the edge file marks was almost always a BAD thing, my first thought was "fake" when i saw those.

interested to see of one my my syrian tets had any type of file marks, i found this...




a little blurry, but you can see what it is. powdery as can be, you can kind of see where my thumbnail smeared it.

don't forget to to check the edges of your coins!

 

Oh no, the dreaded BD. I'm hoping you caught it very early and that it will be a quick cure to solve the problem. I'm wishing you the best when it comes to your coin. BD sucks.

If you don't mind me asking, what Emperor is on that coin with the BD?

 

My first thought was a genuine ancient, but I'm also guilty of saying 'nice coin' on fakes before.

 

File marks are a bad thing on fakes and genuine coins. Very often an experienced collector can tell if his coin is a casting (often detected by their edge) without looking for the raised seam on the edge or the file marks that removed it. Better copies are found with that seam less conspicuous at the rim! There are many reasons to file the edge of genuine coins too. Skilled artisans can "spoon" away most traces of these repairs.

 

I seldom ever comment on "Is this real or fake" posts since most of the time they fall into two categories - a) the obvious having already been stated by half a dozen earlier posters, b) not so obvious, and in that instance, often it's beyond my knowledge or desire to comment on just based on the (often badly-taken) photos. If I think I have something useful to offer, irregardless, I'd caveat it with the fact that I'm no expert and an in-hand opinion by someone who is would probably be the best option.

Since this is an academic exercise, though, I'll venture the opinion that the OP coin is real.

- I think the file marks are evidence of an attempt to make the coin rounder rather than to conceal a seam
- You have the fissures which go right across the edge
- I see no casting bubbles or pits, unless well-hidden beneath the deposits
- In the enlargement, the coin looks struck rather than cast, and the uniform wear is in my opinion a result of harsh cleaning

At the end of the day, though, this would probably be one of the coins I wouldn't comment on if it came up on a regular "Is this real or fake" post. Mainly because I wouldn't be able to say anything about the style of it - an aspect I think is at least as important as the fabric. Unfortunately, my interest in these tetradrachms is very low and I seldom ever look at them more than cursorily.

 

You see, that's why you have to read ALL of Doug's posts, irregardless of topic.
I hope you get that cured, chrsmat!

 

No! I'd really rather those of you who are not interested in coins don't waste their time reading my posts. If all you want to know about your coins is grade and resale there is nothing for you here. Zumby regularly gives us interesting things about a wide variety of wonderful coins but...

The worst part of the hobby to me has been finding people who were interested enough in the same subjects as I that we could converse on the subject. I am poor at timing. When I lived near Dumbarton Oaks, I was not interested in coins that late. They knew a lot about their ugliest of bronzes, too, but put those golds out for public ogling. Now I seem to find more posts on grade and value than on coins. Investing is not a hobby for me. I have a broker for that.

I rarely agree so much with Insider. We approach coins from such a different angle we will have little to discuss. He is pretty much correct about this being a wasted post and highlighted the reason exactly as I see it. Zumbly backed up his opinion and discussed the features he saw that would not fit on a slab label but would most certainly been considered by the experts who would decide whether the coin was 'fake' or 'details'. I was hoping that posters would back up their opinions or even point out whether their experience with such coins included others with edge work. chrsmat did look at his similar coin and I understand his being distracted by the green monster and not telling what he saw other than green. Best wishes on the hospital process; don't catch something worse than you had when you went in.

I apologize for posting this waste of time here. I'll try to avoid future outings of the type. If anyone wishes to discuss a coin, please feel free to 'Conversation' me. As Alegandron correctly pointed out, it takes more than 25 years to learn the subject. 250 years might be closer. We do what we can.

 

I will check out a few tomorrow of same type and make pictures of the side edge. In general the coins shown raise some questions, but I need to think more about it.

 

@dougsmit Insider was talking about Sallent's post being a waste because he just said fake without an explanation. I don't think he meant yours. Your post is very interesting and made me think.

I have little experience with ancients, I've only been collecting for a year. The super obvious fakes I can spot but that's it. I'm not familiar enough with any particular series to know when something's not right and will not offer my opinion when I'm out of my league.

As far as the coin we're discussing - I would think it's genuine because the style looks right.

 

Actually @dougsmit , you need not apologize for your opening post, in my opinion. I feel, just as I do, there are a lot of eyes reading most, if not all the posts and learning. I really did not feel it a waste of time, rather there were many well thought out points posited. My feeling is that I druther you bring out a point or education, than to hold it back. People may not comment, however, like me, many learn different sides of a discussion. I actually enjoyed this thread.