My Latest Coin

Romancollector, Sorry about your experience ; I've been duped more times than I care to admit . However, I'm glad your coin was posted on CT so we all can learn from your experience .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all you input. Will post an update if it is successfully returned.

 

Very interesting. Maybe we should all post our solidii to see if we can hunt out any other counterfeits? I wonder what XRF would tell us of the metal composition between the originals & the fakes?

 

Condolences. You said it was a very reputable dealer, so the good news is that you are very likely to return it with no troubles.

 

Hey everyone,

Good news...I will be able to return no problem!

Thanks to @Barry Murphy for bringing this to my attention!

 

Sorry about all of the trouble. One of the risks of collecting ancients I guess. Glad to see that you can get a full refund.

 

They seem to be old Beirut forgeries and published in bulletin on counterfeit Vol 1 Number 2.
The authentic mother had a "die shift on 3-5 o´clock on obverse" (which resulted in a doubling of the dotted border). Copied form my bulletin of counterfeits 1 vol 2 magazine.
You can then guess how likely it is that so many solidi of the same dies have the same die shift with doubling ^^
This obverse die with this die shift and doubling exist with another reverse die, too

The dot on obverse is only a die flaw and the question is:
1 if the die flaw appeared in the authentic ancient dies and was copied on transfer die , then it would be meaningless.
2 Or if this die flaw only developed in the transfer dies, then all coins with this die flaw only exiting in transfer dies would be fake.

Die match obverse + reverse to
IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 1 No.2 Page 32 RO4

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=XkpTXislIrs=

And obverse
IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 1 No.2 Page 32 RO.5 A and B
http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=T12mxI4Mk9Y=

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=7TWjRZfwuWw=

You will find many of these fakes out there from both die combinations, these fakes can be spotted very easily but it would not be good to post it to give the forgers the chance to fix it.

 

As I have posted elsewhere, everybody with an extensive collection of ancient coins has got at least a few that are not what they think they have.

 

Just came across this thread when @DonnaML posted about her recent Valentinian I solidus. I was surprised to see the quality of the fakes from @Romancollector's link to this thread. I got this one from a reputable auction house. I do not see a die match, but I do see a small pellet below the L in the field on the OBV. I do not see a doubling of the border either. Not sure if it is a must for the coin to be a forgery.

Any opinions? I got this one a couple of years back. I do not own the photos. These are from the auction house.



Valentinian I, Western Roman Empire (AD 364-375). AV solidus (22mm, 4.29 gm, 6h). VF, edge bend, graffiti. Antioch, First Period, 4th officina, ca. 25 February AD 364-24 August AD 367. D N VALENTINI-ANVS P F AVG, rosette-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Valentinian I right, seen from front / RESTITVTOR-REIPVBLICAE, emperor in military dress standing facing, head right, labarum with a cross on banner in right hand, Victory on globe in left; cross in left field, *ANTΔ* in exergue. RIC IX 2b.xxxviii.4.

 

I am not qualified to judge, but the apparent presence of the dot under the "L" --which I can barely see, but I'll take your word for it that it's there -- in the same location as those fakes would certainly raise questions for me. @Barry Murphy, do you have an opinion? Do you see anything problematic about my own new Valentinian I solidus (see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-new-solidus-valentinian-i.394127/) -- which definitely doesn't have that dot? Just because there are a number of fake Valentinian I solidi from the Antioch mint doesn't mean that they're all fake. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if forgers have chosen that emperor and mint to counterfeit for the very reason that they're so common, and there are so many different genuine varieties.

 

IMHO neither the obverse nor the reverse of your coin, @gabsar9115 , is a match for the known false dies.

 

Thank you @DonnaML and @Hrefn!

 

Donna,

Your coin is fine.

here is something I compiled back in 2020 on another fake Valentinian solidus group that isn’t published anywhere else.

Barry

 

Not sure that downloaded properly. I’ll try again from a computer later this morning.

barry

 

I was able to download it without problems, @Barry Murphy.

 

Thank you. I downloaded it with no problems as well. Those forgeries certainly fooled a lot of major auction houses. (When you say that the first one, Gorny 2006, is the possible host coin, does that mean that it's genuine, or is it a forgery as well?)

It is interesting that all of the Valentinian I solidus forgeries I've seen purport to be from the Antioch mint. You'd think that forgers would have tried some other mint by this time, to avoid suspicion.

 

Thank you @Barry Murphy. When you get a chance, can you please review my coin in this post as well? Your compilation on the other Valentinian forgeries with the transfer dies is super useful!

On a related note, does anyone know if auction houses run sanity checks with a metal analyzer like sigma metalytics to ensure compositions approximately match? Are the metal compositions of these fakes siginificantly different from real coins?

 

I have no personal knowledge, but I would be amazed if any auction houses routinely took the time to do that, given how many lots they usually have in their auctions.

 

"Host coin" should be referring to the authentic coin which was used to create the transfer dies.