Authentic Germanicus?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by bsr045, Dec 15, 2017.

?

??

  1. Authentic

    12 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. Fake

    1 vote(s)
    6.3%
  3. Undecided

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  1. bsr045

    bsr045 Well-Known Member

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Mat

    Mat Ancient Coincoholic

    Looks OK, just corroded & looks like it has some bronze disease. Second photo shows some.
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  4. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

  5. Aethelred

    Aethelred The Old Dead King

    Looks genuine to me based on what I can see.
     
  6. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    Might be bronze disease, or it might just be corrosion that wasn't completely removed by stripping. My guess is that the coin was heavily corroded and recently cleaned via electrolysis or chemical stripping, then artificially repatinated. If the coin is going to exhibit bronze disease, now would be the time since there is bare metal that has only recently been exposed to air and moisture. There is also a touch of green on the obverse near the A in CAESAR.

    Either way, I think the coin is authentic.
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  7. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    From your image, I have no reason to doubt the coins authenticity, just as I don't have doubts about the OP coin. I would say, however, that I'm not certain about the sand patina on your coin.

    BTW, welcome
     
    Mikey Zee likes this.
  8. Bing

    Bing Illegitimi non carborundum Supporter

    I'm not asking you to ID the seller, but we have had a few discussions here on CT about certain sellers who seem to have too many coins with the same patina. The two sellers that come to mind both sell from Israel. However there are others out there as well. One of our posters liked to use a quote from the movie Ronin: "whenever there is doubt, there is no doubt". If you doubt the coin now, you will always doubt the coin unless of course you have someone like David Sear certify it.
     
  9. ValiantKnight

    ValiantKnight Well-Known Member

    I believe Z is based in the UAE. But anyways its sellers like him and the other notorious one that have made me forever wary of any coin with sand patina.
     
  10. Valentinian

    Valentinian Well-Known Member

    The reverse of the OP coin has "S C" very off-center. Banti & Simonetti, volume XI, pages 236-258 illustrates 80 examples from old sale catalogs. None of them have an "S C" like that. I vote for "fake."
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  11. bsr045

    bsr045 Well-Known Member

    I have seen many with pretty irregular SC lettering and even more very off-center, although the SC looks pretty darn weird you don't think it' possible corrosion and conditions of burial can make that look?

    I struggle to Beleive even a forger can mess up the SC that bad lol
     
  12. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    Corrosion like was probably on the OP coin before it was zapped can do all kinds of bizarre alterations to lettering, but it can't move it so far off center as it appears in the photo. It is possible that the coin is a contemporary, barbarous imitation.

    I can think of no reason why a modern forger would make a coin like that, however. Coins of Germanicus are not particularly valuable (as compared to, say, Britannicus) to begin with. In this condition, there would be little profit realized for the effort.

    As for the "sand-patina" dealers, don't assume that the coins themselves are fake. Most of the ones I've seen are legitimate. Sometimes the fake patinas cover up problems in the surface, but usually it's just to enhance the coin's appearance and hence, its value. Personally, I think it's no more or less ethical than any other artificial patina. I dislike them all. Others don't mind them.

    But in the interest of full disclosure, when I photograph a coin I first brush it with a silver-bristled brush. This add a slight sheen to the coin that makes the details stand out a little better in the photos. Technically, that microscopic layer of silver is not part of the original coin. Is this an artificial patina, too?
     
  13. Mikey Zee

    Mikey Zee Delenda Est Carthago

    I would have guessed authentic for both coins posted....but now @Valentinian has me wondering about the Germanicus/SC:confused:.
     
  14. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    You all know that counterfeits have been around since ancient times. What I write here is by no means anything to confirm or deny the authenticity of any coin; they are just a few observations. There are exceptions to these "rules."

    1. Some coins are common and some coins are rare. Usually, the value and desirability of the rare ones made them a target for "modern" counterfeiting (16th Century to now).

    2. Generally, one side of a counterfeit is better executed than the other.

    3. Collectors want "nice" coins so until relatively recent times (20th Century) counterfeiters did not produce a fake and then corrode it.

    Therefore, without knowing anything :bucktooth: about the OP's coin except its value in decent condition, a collector can make a fairly accurate assessment of its authenticity in a heavily corroded, tooled, state. :wideyed:

    So, if it is "worth" making a batch of cast copies of a particular ancient, then subjecting them to artfully-placed drips of acid, rapidly induced bronze disease, and tooling, it has been done. :jawdrop::happy:
     
    Mikey Zee likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page