Cast fake (?) appears to be solid silver... Really??

Here's the original thread. There wasn't a consensus about the coin but one member stated with confidence that it is a known fake. However, we have not seen pictures of a matching known fake, so in my mind its authenticity is still a question mark. Barry Murphy didn't comment on this coin; as Ken noted, it was for a different Alexander III tetradrachm shown in a thread by someone else.

So... Eriksund and other newcomers... keep in mind that it is often difficult or impossible to determine authenticity of a coin by pictures only (even for professional numismatists), and that people here are mostly hobbyists offering their opinion. Some opinions carry more weight than others due to years in the hobby or business.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't have a link to the various posts claiming coins are cast. Personally I would look for a seam on the rim when I first see the ancient. If there is a seam it is cast. Some coins were made that way and others were struck. You would have to see which is correct for that coin. I've also noticed that mushy details usually get a coin called suspect and potentially cast. Much easier to spot these things in hand than off a computer screen.

 

Quality is more important than quantity!

6 members voted for fake and 2 for authentic.
Do you know who voted for authetnic and who for fake?
6 completely unexperienced amateurs could have voted for fake and 2 very good and experienced experts could have voted for authentic.
So what would count more?

Pictures can be misleading especially if the are very bad.

Corroded, harshly manually or with electrolysis or with acid cleaned coin can have a similar but not identical surface as cast fakes. Coins where horn silver was removed can have a terrible surface.

Your coin was Price 3038 one of my favorite Alexander coins (love the style)

http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3038

KINGS of MACEDON. Philip III Arrhidaios. 323-317 BC. AR Tetradrachm (27mm, 17.16 g, 5h). In the name and types of Alexander III. Tarsos mint. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin / Zeus Aëtophoros seated left; in left field, Nike flying right; monogram below throne. Price 3038; Newell, Tarsos 43

 

No. The term "barbarous radiates" refers to radiate (with a crown of rays) imitations made in the Gallo-Roman empire, most of which are of Tetricus I and II (270-273 AD). They were not silvered. Here are three of Tetricus I.

 

The weight puzzled me.. It was an even 16 grams... Yeah..I am aware of my potential malfeasance... I make no excuses.. The only value it held for me was the cost.... No more no less... Personally it holds only that value due to it not being authentic...I would not willingly purchase a known fake or ever desire to own one ( no offense to those that feel differently) it's just not me... My fascination is in its purity of origin and of authenticity.

 

Thanks for explaining that term to me. Therefore the identifier is BARBAROUS and the type of head would possibly be RADIATE. The photos you provided made it easy to understand. GOOD JOB.

 

Thank you TIF.. who knows.. It might be real after all....I have recently purchased 3 more... Their authenticity is not in question...I absolutely respect and hear your words...I might have been a bit hasty... Lesson learned... Can someone refer me to someone I can send my coin/coins to be authenticated please... danke..

 

Know the coin or know the dealer. There is no need to send coins out for authentication if you are sure of one of the above.

In other words if you know the type you will be confident the coin is authentic. If you dont know the type then you know that the dealer you are buying from knows what he's doing, so you trust his opinion. If you dont know either then dont buy. Simple.

I'm inclined to believe the coin was real, but the pictures weren't that great. The saving grace is that you did something that an ancient would have done if he was in doubt...made a test cut.

 

Thank you for that...Jay GT4

 

It wasn't ment as a put down, in case you took it that way.

 

To me it looks like it is probably a real coin that was corroded and then polished/over-cleaned

 

As long as we're on the subject, it's probably useful to point out that these coins have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with barbarians - they were not manufactured by barbaric people - and it's really a highly arguable point that "barbarous" as a modifier is appropriate rather than just a lingering arbitrary artistic value judgement decided upon by rich and snobbish Victorian men whose artistic horizons were mighty close to home.
These coins were made and used by precisely the same people who used the coins which they copy. They were created to bolster, and in some cases replace, the supplies of coinage familiar in an area when there were no longer adequate supplies of Imperial coin adequate to carry on business coming into that area.
"Contemporary Copy" would come a lot closer as a descriptive name - and would also subsume a few other types of unofficial ancient coinage including the very few (other than the relatively plentiful foil-wrap denarii) which were actually created to fool people into thinking they were genuine and official issues (ie: what we would call "counterfeit"). You can't seriously think these so-called "barbarous" coins were ever intended to fool anyone familiar with the authentic item into thinking they were official.

 

in no way shape or form did I take that as a put down...

 

Information abounds!

 

I have no knowledge of who made any particular unofficial ancient coin let alone feeling comfortable to make a statement about who made the coins as a class. Where we draw the line between official and unofficial is hard enough but where we cross from relatively unskilled local operations inside the empire and people far beyond the borders is hard to say without find information. My favorite barbarous radiate may not have been made by a 'barbaric' person but it most certainly would have stood out if mixed with the official product.

I really, really wish we all could agree on one point of terminology. We need to distinguish between three classes of non-official 'coins'.

Fakes were made significantly after the real thing with intent of fooling coin collectors. Some fakes are 500 years old now but they were never intended to circulate at face value. This Vetranio was made in the last 100 years for the specific purpose of fooling us. Many fakes are not this deceptive. Many are.


Contemporary counterfeits were made in ancient times with the intent of circulating at face value alongside the real thing. Some may have fooled some people and not others but the idea at the time was to make spending money, not a collectible. Plated coins or fourrees are usually contemporary counterfeits. This Augustus fourree denarius would have fooled many Romans before the plating wore through.


Imitatives or ancient imitations were made to circulate as face value money where there was a need for money even though everyone concerned knew that the item was not official mint product. One class of these are very 'barbarous' looking but decent metal coins found beyond the empire supplies of the real thing but where people wanted coinage for the economy and new the Roman originals as good money. Some imitations may have been sanctioned by the official government for various reasons but proving this status will be difficult. This Tiberius denarius was found in India and has decent silver to be worth one denarius. Some imitatives are very hard to tell from official mint product. This one is easy.


Except for fakes, the above are genuine ancient coins but some are a degree more genuine than others.