How do we know it is fake/real?

I agree with EVERYTHING in this post and ALL the reasons. Unfortunately, in order to tell if a "well-made" and deceptive coin is a fake, you must know what the genuine coin looks like! As I wrote above, having never seen one before - I don't. For example, are they all this thick?

Furthermore, as @zumbly wrote, "style" is very important for grading and authenticating ancients. Again, I have no clue as to the correct appearance of these coins, so for now, w/o looking on the Internet to find more than the one attractive coin that was posted above - I'm still going to GUESS the OP's coin is genuine but crude. And, good or bad, I also believe 100% it is a struck piece which would account for the fissures. Thus taking away one of the reasons my "gut" said genuine in the first place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I looked at the OP images many times and my thoughts changed repeatedly. I did this without also looking for comparisons in various archives.

The cracks look genuine enough-- in other words, not filled as would be seen with a cast.

The filed and shaped edge bothered me initially, but such flan preparation is not unheard of for authentic coins.

The encrustations look like horn silver or some secondarily formed alloy. That can be recreated with various chemicals, but I'm leaning towards "natural".

Put me down for authentic, but it's just a guess.

 

That is why I posted my left facing example, to give other's an idea of what it looks like even though the reverse is different.

And for the reason I said the OP is genuine, I have handled about 7 Philip I Antioch Tets. since I got into collecting. As usual I don't always share things since I like to use cheap grabs for trading, especially with some VC dealers.

I'm actually sick of Philip I Antioch Tets. from my end. Same with Julia Maesa denarii.

 

BOO! I hope you change your mind and continue to post. I read NOTHING in this thread that showed a lack of interest in your post or coin. I got "blasted" the other day for posting only "fake" about the worse piece-of-junk gold coin and not giving my reasons - about a dozen in that case! So I just realized that I too am a guilty party by missing a chance to educate.

Finally, as stated above: While little more than twenty-five years of study, good teachers, a stereo microscope, library, access to coins, and hard work will probably get a fellow very near the top of the professional ranks as far as grading and authenticating US coins; a person will die before reaching that level today with ancients.

 

Y E S !

 

Well, I have no idea if it's fake or not, it's just the first thing I thought. Yeah, it was a wasted post. So what? Not every post is going to be a great insightful lecture on whatever the topic is. I'm entitled to make a rare wasted post here or there.

 

I fall into the category of "helpless neophyte" or "real bona fide beginner" when it comes to authenticating just about anything, much less ancient coins.

Given that status, this thread has so far been extremely helpful in delineating the process that far more experienced people use while authenticating.

I currently possess only 5 ancients. Each one cost less than $50. When buying them I considered the low(er) price a factor for authenticity. After all, who would waste their time counterfeiting cheap coins? But that only reflects probability. Cheaper coins should have a smaller chance of fraudulence.

Given my limited knowledge in this area - it wouldn't even fill the surface of a postage stamp - I used what I learned from this extremely helpful forum to guide me when making those 5 purchases. In general I avoid porous surfaces, edge seams and anything that looks intuitively artificial. I may pass up perfectly authentic coins using this criteria, but I will also have a (somewhat) greater chance of not purchasing fakes. I hope. Basically, I'm just trying to decrease my chances of buying phonies.

Given the photo of the coin in question and my current knowledge, I would not buy the coin if I saw it in a shop. Why? The edge markings would scare me off, as would the porous-looking surfaces. Also, something ineffable about the surface markings just doesn't "look right" to me. I'm not saying that it's fake. I have no idea whether it's fake or not. It just raises some basic red flags that I carry around in my soggy neurons. My sloppy, internal and doubtlessly flawed probability calculator would say "pass."

 

Yes, you have wasted your "wasted post voucher" for the month of August, now hand it over and only post paragraph length replies!

 

I would not buy it either.

EDIT: Because I don't know what it is actually worth. However, if I saw anything this nice (in spite of the edge) for under $10, I would buy it. Additionally, I collect counterfeits so it would not matter to me if it were genuine or not at that price!

 

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.[/QUOTE]
This quote was part of @dougsmit,
I'm personally glad you posted this. I didn't respond simply because I don't have any experience when it comes to any ancients. While I've collected coins for years I've just begun collecting ancients.
This has been educational. The reason for you to create this post served purpose. I've noticed a lot of your replies issue challenge for the creators of certain threads. It pushes & makes a person learn. I at time scan to see if & what your reply might be on thread just to see what academic challenge or statement you may make for the OP.

 

Very interesting and educationnal thread.

I will try a go : I'd tend to say genuine :
- although being crude style looks OK to me
- I don't see any casting bubble, the coin looks struck
- fissure is a good sign and filed edges don't bother me too much in this case: either it's been done before stricking and was made to get a rounded flan, or after stricking and should have effect on the fissure

I won't comment on deposit/patina, as, even if recently added, thus deceptive (which I don't have any opinion about), the coin would still be genuine

That said, I wouldn't buy it because it's not at my taste

Q

 

I will not be typing a paragraph on my thoughts about this coin. Most everything has been said (and then some). I tend to agree with the side that says genuine for many of the reasons cited. If you need more than this, just read the posts above.

 

Seems many here wouldn't touch Doug's Philip. But I am sure if JA had the coin co-signed to him, starting bid of $40 with an ex Doug provenance, someone here would bid easily.

Despite being burned out with Philip Tets, I would take it, especially for less than $50. Mainly for the Medusa on chest, mine doesn't have that.

 

As others have said, the flan crack is convincing and file marks don't always worry me unless there are other signs of casting as some coins have them from antiquity and many others that are ex-jewelry or were considered and prepared but never mounted in jewelry have them. Given how round this coin is it is the kind of coin that would be considered for jewelry. In the enlarged section shown by Doug the coin looks struck as it has sharp transitions that don't suggest a cast replica and the patina consistent with debased silver and billon coins that I have handled.

Given this, I am inclined toward authentic, with the caveat that I don't know much about these particular types and so cannot speak to style, fabric, etc with respect to other examples of the type.

Thanks for posting this Doug. I think it's a good exercise and I look forward to seeing what others think about it and what you think about it.

 

This is the whole purpose of this post. Most of you spend more than I do on coins. I suggest that you accompany this with thinking more. I am not interested in the outcome of a vote on this coin. If I wanted a 'ruling' I would send it to Sear/Vagi/Murphy and spend more on that opinion than the coin is worth. What I want is for people who like coins to make CT a better place with more thoughtful posts and fewer of the other kind from people who would really be happier collecting PF70) bullion.

Thanks.

 

My expertise is Roman Republican silver, and more specifically, Imperatorial issues in which I would consider myself much better than average slob in recognizing forgeries. I think I'm at least qualified to render a thoughtful opinion here but in no way a expert on these coins.

First and foremost, I don't like the coin. Upon initial view, it just doesn't look "right" but I wouldn't even know who this emperor was without looking hard at it and reading the inscription. These radiate head dudes all look the same to me. Upon closer inspection, these are my specific thoughts though I hope they meet approvingly with Insider's time preferences.

Style From an overall style standpoint, I'm not put off based on other CoinArchives samples that I think are at least close if not direct comparisons. It looks within reason to my eyes. Style seems to vary a lot with these Philip tets too.

Measures. They seem good. Weight, diameter, axis seem comparable if I'm looking at the right coins in CoinArchives.

Surfaces - Not right to my eyes. The fields in front of the portrait appear raised and lumpy, same around the eagle. I don't like it.

Lettering - Not right to my eyes. I don't like how the letters are flat yet well defined at the edges. The letters appear to be have been worked on in some manner and just stand out too much from the rest of the crappy surfaces. They sort of look like they've been artificially worn down and tooled.

Edges - Some of the edges and rim of the coin appear too much like a right angle and sharp, modern looking or again worked on in some manner perhaps with the filing. The filing in general is not a particularly good sign, but not a death sentence IMO. The fact that there appear to be some fissures that run the length of the edge from surface to surface without a seam or filing next to it is a better than neutral sign but I think those types of fissures could easily be duplicated with good casting. Overall, I think the edge is a negative and questionable.

Device detail - They look odd to my eyes. This is where my lack of expertise with the issue is a handicap. There is an odd mix of what looks like corrosion, wear, then pretty sharp detail. It just seems inconsistent to my eyes.

Conclusion - I think it is either a) cast or b) heavily corroded and tooled, or c) cast tooled and then artificially corroded. Either way, my vote is that it is bad.

 

I once owned a coin that this reminds me of the OP coin with similar "issues". I returned it to the dealer who apologized for putting it in their auction. The lumpy surfaces, the odd lettering, the inconsistent detail vs wear. Oh, and filed edges that made for 90 degree transitions to the surface of the coin. I don't know exactly what this thing is, but I'm certain it's not good and the dealer agreed.

 

Not a wasted post at all. This is an excellent discussion. Most has already been offered, but I think the coin is just fine. The style is correct, the surfaces right, the patina right. I am sure if someone had the time they could give a die link (though that doesnt always mean genuine). Anyway, horn silver is hard to fake and very difficult to remove. If I had it in hand I would use a toothpick to see how hard the crust is. Just as with Chinese coins, if the stuff comes off easily and powdery, no good. If its hard and difficult to remove, its good.

 

the edges of this coin are also pretty flat (i thought that was weird at first on the OP coin, but if it was mounted in something..ok) and it appears to have VERY subtle markings on the edge....i'll be darned. i tried to get a pic, but it just didn't come out...very hard to see. i had to use my glasses and a magnifier to see it.

NOTE: the edges are flatter than they appear in this pic, i was just learning to "paint" backgrounds and didn't sue a soft enough brush.

so how can you tell between OK filing marks and NOT OK filing marks???

on my coin, the marks are very hard to see...i assume you would have to grind hard to remove a seam. so...old marks...i guess.

 

Filing marks may not be that at all, actually. In most cases they are cleaning marks left by over-zealous and amateur cleaning.