About a year ago, I purchased a lot of many fragmented early round Chinese coins. The dealer advertised them as being likely fake, but I took the gamble ($20) and bought them. I have reassembled most of them (the one on the bottom-right is an ancient drinking game token, so it will not be descussed): H-6.1: “Gong”, a city in the state of Liang H-6.2: “Gong Tun Chi Jin”, “Gong Pure Red Metal” H-6.2: “Gong Tun Chi Jin”, “Gong Pure Red Metal” H-6.6: “Qi Yuan Yi Jin”, “Qiyuan One Jin”. Qiyuan was a city in the state of Liang H-6.12: “Lin”, a city in the state of Zhao H-6.26 or H-6.27: “Zhong Yi Liang Shi Er (Or “Shi” on H-6.27) Yi Zhu”, “Weight one Liang or 12 (Or “14”) Zhu”, state of Qin Also possibly H-7.2, an early “Ban Liang” with its characters reversed. Observations: 1. The metal along the breaks appeared crystallized. 2. During a test to see how brittle the metal was, a small protrusion was easily broken off with surprisingly little force. 3. Some of the breaks are new, some have oxidized (“toned”), and some were completely patinated. Some of the coins exhibited all three attributes. 4. All of the patinas look very similar. 5. The patina adjacent to the breaks had chipped away, revealing a thick, brittle layer of crust. 6. Several of the fragments had no metallic ring to them at all when dropped on a hard surface. This is indicative of crystallized metal. 7. Several of the breaks were very clean and showed no signs of bending. This is idicative of old, brittle metal 8. On the Lin coin, there were bends at the breaks. On these bends where the metal stretched, there was buckling. These bends were only a few millimeters long and extended only a fraction along the break. Analysis of the above observations: Old, brittle, non-resonant, crystallized metal is a very good sign. It means the coins have been in the ground for thousands of years. However, the fact that the patina looked the same on all of the coins made me doubtful. As stated above, these coins came from different regions and different states, but to have the same patina means that they were found in the same place. It seems highly unlikely that 6 different extremely rare varieties would be found in the same location, all shattered. From this I decided that these were likely fakes modified from genuine coins and repatinated in the same workshop. They either just happened to shatter during the process, or they were destroyed to render the fakes useless. I found these a couple days ago and decided to revisit them, focusing on the breaks themselves. This is when I noticed observations #3 and #8. For the breaks to have multiple states of patination (from freshly-broken to broken hundreds/thousands of years ago), the breaks can’t have happened at the same time. This renders my above theory incorrect. Building off of observation number 8, it appears that the “Lin” coin had been knicked by something sharp (a plow?) several times, causing the metal to be cut, buckle, and propagate a break down to the middle hole. The fact that the bend is only a small part of the break means that the coin was not broken by being forcibly bent. The breaking mechanism was isolated to the edges. The bends were in different locations and in different directions, suggesting the coin was moved about in the soil, which is consistent with the plow theory. The other coins do not show these cut marks, so it is possible they were deeper in the surface but still affected/broken by the soil movement. If these coins were broken into small pieces in the soil, that would explain why so many of the pieces are missing (eg. never recovered). While this does not make me 100% sure that these coins are genuine, their authenticity seems very highly plausible from the evidence. Perhaps these coins are the rejects from a hoard discovered while a farmer was plowing the field. Or maybe an ancient coin collector had hidden away his stash, only for it to get obliterated centuries later? I have no context for where and with what these coins were found, so there is no way to tell for certain. @AnYangMan is my analysis sound?
This lot still continues to amaze me for several reasons. I’d say that is an excellent analysis, just a few extra points. One thing I think you should not exclude is the Jiuling 酒令 drinking game cash. These have been dated, both archaeologically and stylistically, to the mid-western Han dynasty. And judging on the patina, this would have been part of the same hoard as the other fragments. But all the other fragments date from around a century earlier! Abnormal, to say the least. Individually, these coins are more than extremely rare, with most specimens appearing on the market only sporadically. But the odds that these would pop up in a single hoard, together, without repetition, without any sign of any less rare coins (save one Yuan fragment), would seem astronomically small. Throw in the Jiuling cash, and you’ve gotten yourself an interesting mystery. A coin-collector’s stash could be possible, it would certainly explain the non-repetitionary nature and possibly the inclusion of the Jiuling token, but you’d need to know something about the rest of the hoard to safely assume this. Another possibility could be that the Jiuling cash was not part of the original hoard, but was later deposited on the same site and during ploughing got mixed in. This would be consistent with the plough marks seen on some of the coins, but still does not explain the strange content of the pre-Han portion. You are in a much better position to judge the authenticity of these fragments, but I see no red flags, besides their rarity. Patina looks good, as does the calligraphy. How is their relief compared to other examples? I’d take an extra good look at the breaks that split a character, the second Gong Tun Chi Jin and the Lin fragment. I assume both breaks are crystallised and thus ancient? If so, does the relief of the character stay consistent the closer you get to the break? Or does it get “flatter”? I’d say that without any additional information concerning the provenance of this lot, speculating is all we can do. We can think of the wildest scenarios concerning ancient coin collectors (and it is definitely fun to do so), but at the end of the day it is just speculation. Have you asked our Chinese friend where he acquired this lot? Mika Ps. The slightly slanted top-stroke of Liang, in combination with the trapezoidal shape of the lower half, would seem to prove that the Liang fragment is indeed part of a Zhong Yi Liang Shi Er Zhu 重一两十二铢, rather than a Ban Liang.
I'm always amazed people still do this, so I would first advise any and all never to use the 'ring' or 'drop' test. I have seen too many genuine coins destroyed in this manner. Anyway, I see no reason to suggest these are not genuine. They look good in all manner, from patina to style. As to why they were found together, well, maybe they werent. A seller of an item will suggest anything to make a sale, so there is no way at this point to know if they truly were in a hoard but if so, what else was in the group? Again one will never know. It is entirely possible it was chock full of these, complete and in good condition (not likely but certainly possible). The archaeological record is full of examples of things that were found together, or in a place where they should not have been at all. There just isnt any way to know, but its fun to come up with theories!
I excluded it because I was not really familiar with the style. But seeing how my analysis was based on metal appearance and patina, I really should not have excluded it. My thoughts exactly. The relief on the “Lin” coin was surprisingly deep. I only used it in this case because the coins were already destroyed, and gleaning whatever information I could find was worth the risk of further breakage. I also vehemently advise no one to use the “drop test” on ancient Chinese coins. The seller did not suggest anything other than that the round coins were probably fake. There were also fragments on Ming knives included, a fragment of a “Yuan” round-holed coin, and a piece of a Korean/North Song 1-cash, but the patina was obviously different. They appeared to be thrown in as additional junk. The seller said that these additional items were genuine (and I saw no reason to disagree). I was thinking this too, but I would think there would have been some mention of this if it were the case.
Excellent suggestion! I hadn’t thought of this. Looking at the breaks, the characters are obviously part of the coin (as in not another layer of metal sitting on the coin). Looking at the metal color and texture, they are the same at each break. The characters are bold across the break and have consistent relief.
Not too likely. The last thing anyone would do would be to destroy a market price by advertising that previously very rare coins are now common (or at least less rare). I've personally seen many hoards of fabulous material which included very rare coins which still only come to market occasionally. Such hoards never are released or sold at the same time (unless part of a known collection or published and released hoard by a government, like they do in England). Nevertheless, due to the rarity of these I would imagine there were not too many other examples in the group, but likely there were. Good point. This is a good method in determining fake from genuine and it is commonly used to authenticate ceramic and stone inscriptions. Most often forgeries can be detected if the inscription 'drops off' gradually rather than being cut in the middle. Of course, this can be avoided by making a complete forgery then breaking it up. Its mostly best in determining as I said stone and ceramic, but can also detect tooled coins.
Looking at the breaks on this piece, they have the same texture as the others in this lot. The patina on the breaks has all three of the characteristics mentioned above, suggesting being broken at least three times with a significant amount of time between breaks. It seems to have been with the other coins in this hoard.
