Is this one of those dodgy frog staters I have heard tell about? Most of the sellers other stuff looks dodgy too..... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AEGINA-Scarce-Ancient-Greek-Silver-Coin-STATER/392403357774
Some of His feedback a fake coin , a forgery , not even gold , no answer from seller , open a claim Buyer: i***i ( 546) During past 6 months -- -- Private Tried to contact seller coin a possible fake no reply Buyer: c***j ( 4800) During past 6 months -- -- Private Item never received and correspondence ignored by vendor Buyer: w***w ( 327) During past 6 months -- -- Private info Detailed item information is not available for the following items because the Feedback is over 90 days old. SELLS FAKES.... BEWARE
A fake seller through and through, the only item they were selling that looked a bit convincing to me (without having any experience whatsoever with the type) was this Provincial Otho. It's a safe bet that it's fake like everything else but I thought it was noteworthy for being better than their other more obvious fakes, the patina looks very good in my opinion: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SYRIA-Se...ch-bronze-Otho-AD-69-E-very-rare/392402877158
Most likely modern dies on a planchette made from molten ancient coin culls...then patinated. A good fake, but a fake nonetheless.
I'd never thought about it but recycling junk ancient culls to cast into new planchets would be an effective way to replicate the particular character(s) of the different ancient alloys, provided they're not already engaged in striking fakes directly on the patinated ancient culls! One would obviously be far closer to the original by melting some slick orichalcum sestertii than melting down some old yellow brass plumbing valves etc. Had you read about forgers doing this? Some features of the Otho are suspicious but I'm still very impressed with the patina, they did an alarmingly good job and it even looks like it was thick enough to chip off on the edge (9:00 on obverse). A patina job like that would fool me if hidden among a bunch of genuine bronzes, honestly it's got me a bit spooked.
Also would not be much to throw in a real coin amongst the fakes to try to make it look good. Is not hard to have a friend to place a high bid on the good coin so it does not sell, or He could just not send it and issue a refund if the good one sells.
The Spanish master does it, but he melts culled ancient planchets to make forgeries of statues. Even though his modern forgery has been exposed by experts, many museums that were fooled insist the statues are real, though advanced examination techniques have shown the patina to be fake on the statues that have been examined, and the facial expressions of the master forger do not match the style of genuine classical statues. Sadly it seems like some modern museums prefer to go along with the con for ticket sales. So they accept these bronze heads without provenance and questionable style on loan, promote the exhibits and make money, then the questionable statutes now have a museum provenance that the owners can use to sell the forgeries for millions at auction.
Slavey Petrov at one time used ancient silver to strike his reproductions. As for the frog stater, it should not fool anyone, really.
Thanks for the input! While I and likely everyone else here agrees that the "frog stater" is pitifully obvious, may I ask what you think about the AE Otho provincial? If not for the context of being an Otho listed with a bunch of unsophisticated fakes I'd likely assume that it was genuine. Do you see any glaring problems with it that the rest of us are overlooking currently but may be able to keep in mind and watch-out-for?
Dodgey? I like my FROGGER: Luceria AES Grave Anonymous 217-215 BCE Uncia 7.35g Frog-Corn Ear pellet retrograde L T-V 285
This is a great documentary movie! I just watched it and would highly recommend it. Thanks for posting it here.
Sure. To start, the style itself is completely off. I'm going to ignore the reverse for this comparison. Here is a genuine example on the left and the fake on the right: Most of the portraits of Otho from Antioch are all very similar in style. When looking at them side by side the difference is very obvious. The nose is wrong, the chin and cheeks are strangely round, the laurels not consistent with known types, the wreath tie was done a bit heavy handed and should be more refined. But have a closer look at the inscription. I took the most obvious portion for my example: The first part of the inscription, IMP M OTHO started out half convincing, but by the second half it got progressively worse. Note how the letters change, from somewhat decent to much heavier and thicker due to a general lack of skill. Especially note the letters ..G TR..They are especially heavy and and end abruptly and sharply. This is a textbook representation of the use of an electric rotary tool to carve the letters. I do give them some credit for producing a somewhat convincing patina, but that is just simple chemistry. Nevertheless, one can sometimes see hints of artificial patina: In this image you can see some broken patina on the edge where it has abraded away. While this is also possible with a genuine coin, in this case it just lends evidence of a forgery. New patina often does not adhere to the surface of the coin very well, and in many cases if in hand one can break it off with a fingernail. At first I thought this might be struck or pressed, but the nifty zoom feature on Ebay lets us see some details not discernible in the smaller photo. In the above photo there seems to be a lot of casting pearls. Some may think I am giving up some secrets and helping the forgers, but any good forger already knows this and would not produce such a bad fake. A fake of this type is more often seen offered to dealers salted into a larger group of genuine coins. One of the most powerful tools one can use when they are suspicious is simple comparison. Check out a sellers other items, and also closed sales. Do they all have similarities? Do they all look a bit odd or off? If so you generally with have the answer.
Bravo and thank you for taking the time to compile that wonderful lesson, it's extremely helpful to have such a detailed autopsy of a fake to reference. I didn't notice how shallow the patina chips were and now recognize the signs of poor chemical adhesion you referenced, that's a very helpful observational "check" and probably one of the best things I've learned all week. Thanks Ken!
Here is an example of a genuine coin where the patina is eroding away: Coins like this are generally very unstable and should probably be avoided.
Yeah that one has a measurably thick patina/converted surfaces, it's quite clear now that the shallow flakes on the fake are very different in appearance than deep flakes on authentic ancient pieces.
