Hadrian Aureus: A Tale of Subtle Differences

Flow marks -- radial striations caused by the die striking the hot metal -- are normally visible on EF-condition gold coins.

Two of the coins display obvious flow marks, while two of them don't (although the picture quality might not be sufficient to see subtle flow marks on these two coins). But this is the die-independent characteristic that I mentioned earlier.

I will wait until tomorrow to give the final answer, to allow others to chime in!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The flowmarks don't look evident in pics 1 and 2, and to me 1 looks most suspicious and likely to be the pressed fake. But really, not being told that any were fake, I probably wouldn't have thought so.

 

I just came back to this thread. Well, I was about to chime in and eliminate regarding 3&4 having radial flow lines on them, meaning good strikes, and good coins. But @IdesOfMarch01 just gave the clue. Rats. At least I feel good in my elimination process.

I will review 1&2 for my thoughts.

 

Has 3 has some work done on the ear? It looks like someone thought that the ear should be hair.

 

Like others I wouldn't have been bothered by any of them should my attention not being attracted to some anomaly

Let's try a go : I'm with @Bing on example #1 having A's looking a bit different : they have serif that don't appear on the others

Q

 

I'll vote for 1 also. Some of the reasons have already been mentioned.
Another factor i do not like is the discordancy between the overal waxy look, and the fact that it's the only one where i can see details of separate fingers on the hands of seated Hispania.

 

It's tomorrow!

 

Bing was on the right track. On the counterfeit's reverse, the first A in Hispania lacks the crossbar in the A (it's not just a filled-in die), while all the others have this crossbar.

Also on the counterfeit, the S in Hispania is missing the top serif (which is hard to tell from the picture).

This eliminates coin #1, despite not being able to detect flow marks from its picture. (I believe there is evidence of some metal flow on #1's obverse below the HADRIAN.)

Yes, my coin is the counterfeit.

It is to the auction house's everlasting credit that it initiated this process entirely of its own accord: contacted my dealer, had me return the coin for microscopic examination, consulted with other experts, and provided me with an explanation of their analysis. I wonder if less ethical auctioneers would have left the issue unresolved, hoping it would just go away.

 

I'm sorry about your coin but happy to hear of your dealer's high ethical standards and diligence.

 

Thanks.

You were correct in your initial observation that the coin's features appear to be pressed rather than struck. Very good -- a gold star!

 

WOW!! They are scary good, since I was completely stumped even when I knew one was fake and had the others for comparison....

I would've been going back and forth on each without reaching a conclusion.

 

@IdesOfMarch01 : I am very glad your Dealer and Auction House were honest and fixed it all. I was late to the show, but felt it was always #2. However, I had to go through an internal process to prove it to myself. @TIF , LOL, really threw me off as she stated it was your coin. However, I still felt it was not right. I was good on your observation of the strike flow lines striations, as I felt exactly the same, and felt #1 was good. I just did not get deep into why I felt #2 was wrong in my head. Nice explanations, and I really appreciate the education. At least I feel good with my "gut", and learned.

 

Do any of you think Coin 1 has had some subtle "improvements"? The fields are mostly free of flow lines and look slightly and uniformly matte, with the devices slightly more polished. Plus, the reverse field bumps are not as prominent.

 

I know nothing about gold but #1 has a raised and recessed dot under the chin and odd texture in fields overall that could suggest a transfer error. I wouldn't buy any of them because my abilities and budget would require feeling good about the entire subject before spending a year's budget on one coin. Should I be willing to trust a big seller enough to accept them? I'd rather make more, smaller mistakes.

 

Wow, that's impressive, disconcerting, and disappointing. But kudos to NAC for being a quality firm! I suspect they identified the fake if another coin surfaced.

I suppose the upside is you'll have the funds back to use in the next upcoming sale!

 

I think the matte surfaces on the first coin are due to an odd photography run at Gemini. My avatar coin was originally in the same sale and had a similar matte look when it's really quite lustrous:

 

Exactly! I'm already making adjustments to my budgets in the October auctions...

Really, my biggest disappointment is that I very much liked the coin and felt that the price was a bargain for a Hadrian travel-series aureus.

It is scary how good this forgery is, though.

 

Hadrian did take a shower and haircut with coin 2...

 

Yup, 2 totally stumped me. But I can tell the difference now in the flow lines on the other examples. Glad you got your money back.

 

I don't have a clue! I defer to the experts.