Akragas is a popular target for high quality counterfeits. I pulled the risky trigger on a tetradrachm and even upon further inspection have not been able to conclusively determine whether it is genuine or fake. Here is the coin in question. Description by the auction house: The obverse is associated with both a genuine die and a high quality fake die. The lettering reminds me more of the counterfeit. The edge flaws aren't exactly typical on Akragas tets which could mean the coin has been hot-pressed. The reverse die is similar to many others tetradrachms, but I have not been able to find a die match. The surface texture doesn't provide us with many hints; it's flat and looks worn. The banker's marks don't really mean anything and could be modern. The "die rust" could be fake. The weight is correct, but that'd be par for the course on a good fake. On the other hand, the counterfeits with this obverse have not been associated with this reverse type. While the "die rust" on the obverse could be fake I have not seen it on any of the counterfeits. There are small hints of doubling on the reverse. Where the crab's legs seems to end there are actually very faint signs of the full legs as if they've worn off. The coin has been struck (or pressed) at a very slight angle. Extremely hard silicate material can be found in some of the cavities and I have found grains of sand stuck in the cavities. It seems like some of the cracked parts might be showing crystallization, but even at 15x magnification I'm finding it impossible to tell. Most of the rougher fractured surfaces which might show the internal structure seem to be covered by the (silica-like?) encrustations. The only perfect obverse match that I've been able to find was this tetradrachm sold at Fritz Rudolf Künker Auction 312 (lot 2106): Here are two examples of the typical fake as per Forgery Network: Overlaying the Künker coin with a fake suggests that there are very slight differences, similar to when my coin is overlaid with a fake. Otherwise it is also very close to the fakes including much of the feathering. It has not escaped me that the Künker coin might also be a counterfeit and some of the differences might be explained by the angles of the photos. This case has left me puzzled. What are your thoughts?
Here are few structural shots of the flaws as well we the banker's marks with some grains of sand inside. Some of the edge flaws also have grains of sand stuck inside them. Some of them seem like they ended up there before the encrustations, whatever they are, were formed.
Kevon, I haven't had enough exposure to ancient Sicilian coinage to offer an educated opinion on the authenticity of your coin despite the excellent photos in your thread, but I can appreciate your suspicion. Why not send the coin to David Sear or NGC for another opinion.
My first impression is positive; the surface looks OK and genuinely old as do the cracks and their fillings. I think you did OK there!
Thank you both of you for the replies. I have considered David Sear's service. The one thing stopping me is that I live in mainland Europe. Not only does the shipping cost quite a bit, it is technically illegal to export this coin outside of the EU without an export permit which in itself takes time and money. The whole thing is a hassle or comes with added risks.
I have just discussed this coin with an industry professional and they were prepared to condemn it. I was somewhat anticipating this and it shows that while some of the details they pointed out had also caught my attention, not being familiar with the exact type and lacking reference coins meant that I had missed some warning signs. Rough quote posted with permission, slightly edited to condense the messaging:
I think he is right, and the “control marks” may have been added to remove further evidence (I’ve never seen any like that anyway). If you post to La Moneta, the Italian board, there are Italian experts who would weigh-in.
Agreed, the marks look unusual. I hadn't thought that they might've been added to hide evidence - rather that they might've been added to make the coin seem naturally worn/circulated. I'm impressed by some of the details on this, I must admit. The grains of sand and some of the encrustations do seem very convincing. Wonder if the sand grains were an intentional detail or just a side effect of some treatment the coin has received. I have already contacted the auction house in question with these notes. The reason I purchased the coin was because they offer authenticity guarantee with no expiration date.
Those feet and the tail make me feel grateful that the counterfeiter didn't bother to research the type.
The edge breaks look characteristic of a pressed fake to me. They look like what you'd get if you press dough with steady pressure.
Since you did look in forgery network, you should have condemned the coin yourself without asking the opinion of the other "industry professional" who must be as expert as the one who sold you the coin in via del babuino. The coin is fake but not for the reasons they told you There is nothing wrong with the style of the claws and tail and nothing random was added. Have a look again at the bulletin and you can read the reasons they condemned it. As I have said in the past, know the coin and hardly trust anyone but yourself. "Struck from modern dies. The obverse die is too large and flat. Generally, the letters in the original are confidently, but lightly made; in the counterfeit die they are recut and have a thicker, less graceful, more regular appearnce. Note the letter N; it is recut with the vertical strokes nearly the same length in the counterfeit; on the original the left stroke id only half as long as the right one. The head and neck of the bird have been touched up in the new die and have become slimmer in the process. The reverse incuse is deeper than on any of the published speciments of this die. The die break on the edge of the incuse below the crab which occurs on all these specimens has been tooled off in the counterfeit die. Published in the IAPN BOC Vol 13, No. 1 in 1988 - example 1 Image used with permission of IAPN" Forgery Type: pressed
This specific coin seems to be the most common type of fake and has an extremely similar obverse. Luckily with it being so common there are pictures of it readily available (including many coins on ACSearch). Overlaying seems to suggest that the obverse is very slightly different with the beak and the positioning of the letters. I'm inclined to say that my fake is not necessarily from the same exact die. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a touched up transfer die - from a fake.
Hi @Kevon, I'm no expert on forgeries, but the thing that makes me suspicious about this coin is, as mentioned, the shape (and possibly angle) of the edge cracks. They look to be more consistent with pressing than with striking. Also, I'd probably expect the edge breaks to be less ragged if it were struck. I wish you the best and sincerely hope for your sake that you manage to gather enough compelling arguments to return the coin for a refund. Akragas tetradrachms aren't cheap... FWIW, I've taught myself to steer clear of a coin whenever I have even the slightest suspicion about its authenticity (as you yourself admittedly had before you bid on it). Better to miss out than to be sorry afterward. Other coins will turn up, even Akragas tets. And remember, even if it is real, the lingering doubt will regardlessly cast a long shadow over the joy of owning it. In my experience, no coin is worth it.
Although the feet on many of the authentic varieties are a little wonky, these seem a little too wonky and I suspect the dealer was correct, that the transfer die did not capture the feet and they were re-engraved on the fake die.
Genuine Fake The style of the claws is exactly the same and the dealer condemned this for the wrong reasons. As long as this is published in the IAPN bulletin I am not sure what's the point of discussion. Unless you don't agree with the bulletin?
