Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 3204282, member: 24314&quot;]Not talking down to anyone but let&#039;s not get into the weeds of fantasy.<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie15" alt=":arghh:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; Just color me very frustrated <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie20" alt=":banghead:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie20" alt=":banghead:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie20" alt=":banghead:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> and please forgive my VERY CRANKY <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie93" alt=":troll:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />AND DISAPPOINTED <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> attitude at the moment.</p><p><br /></p><p>Silverlock, posted: &quot;I’m far from an expert, but based on my understanding of “crystallization”, the process involves erosion of a metal or metal that has migrated and accumulated on the edges of the crystal lattice. If that understanding is correct, then there shouldn’t be a preferred orientation to the “crystallization”. The features on both coins appear strongly oriented, so I’m not yet convinced what we are seeing is “crystallization”. <b><i>Flow lines from casting, perhaps?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span style="color: #b30000">Absolutely NOT!</span></i></b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Sallent, posted:&nbsp; &quot;Flow lines is a good guess. Could also be the way the flan or dies were prepared. Some coins have flan preparation lines or adjustment lines:</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Unfortunately, none of your images have anything to do with the characteristic on the OP&#039;s coin so I removed them.&nbsp; The coin&#039;s surface is as original as a corroded, etched, or cast coin can be.&nbsp; Now we need to find out which is it. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </span></p><p><br /></p><p>And there are a whole other host of explanations for <b>lines and marks on coin surfaces </b>[<span style="color: #ff0000">Except these are not lines or marks!</span>]epending on the type of coin: for example, die rust, cracked dies, worn dies, double strikes, flow lines, adjustment lines, post-stike finishing (filing) by the mint workers, adjustment lines, etc.&nbsp; <span style="color: #ff0000">Blah, blah, blah...and these also have nothing to do with the OP&#039;s coin.</span></p><p><br /></p><p>The point is that OPs coin could have a dozen things that could explain those marks that may not be indicative of anything neferious. To jump to the conclusion that it is a cast <b>without explaining in detail </b>[<span style="color: #ff0000">Curious, What part of&nbsp; SPIDER-WEB CRYSTALLISATION did you miss?</span>] why Insider thinks that is the case is unfair to OP...especially considering he is not exactly a proficient ancients collector. </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Very true, Insider cannot tell a worn Fausta from a Crispus, a Bull from a Chimaera, or an Obol from a Hemiobol; however, he has probably looked at the surface of more ancient coins using a stereo microscope than 95% of the collectors/dealers in the World.&nbsp; Not bragging just fact!&nbsp; Additionally, on the two occasions where Insider disagreed with several prominent, long-time, very experienced Ancient coin dealers on the authenticity of a coin, the British Museum agreed the coins were counterfeit EACH TIME.&nbsp; </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Now that we get that over with...&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>I hear what he says, [<span style="color: #ff0000">No you didn&#039;t</span>] he&#039;s seen weird marks in cast forgeries, [<span style="color: #ff0000">Actually what I said was I&#039;ve seen EXACTLY these marks on cast fakes and I&#039;ve never seen an ancient bronze coin with spider-web crystallization - either genuine or counterfeit UNTIL NOW - on the OP&#039;s coin.&nbsp; Furthermore, as a member here, I added my observation.&nbsp; I NEVER said the OP&#039;s coins are counterfeit.&nbsp; What I said was they are unusual and he may wish to have them checked by someone who can at least attribute the coins as I have no clue what they are!</span>] but those marks don&#039;t look to me like the typical marks one would see on a cast die that was damaged prior to it hardening. Another thing that makes me believe not a cast, I don&#039;t see the soapy look or the softness in detail (looks like normal wear to me) and I don&#039;t see the pattern of cast bubbles or die bubbles you see in casts, but rather irregular pattern typical of corrosion pitting and porosity one would get on a genuine coin during burrial.</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">As I already stated, it is possible that environmental conditions etched a cast planchet.&nbsp; Tooling did not make the marks and neither did the die.</span></p><p>Not to say OPs coin couldn&#039;t still be a forgery, but I&#039;d be shocked if it was one.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>My best</b> <b>guess</b>, could be some sort of flow marks from die wear or erosion, <span style="color: #ff0000">NO, NO, NO!</span> or flow marks exaggerated by irregularities (non-uniform surfaces) in the flan made during flan preparation...<span style="color: #ff0000">NO, NO, NO</span>! but I won&#039;t say for sure as there&#039;s still a lot about the ancient minting process I still don&#039;t know (and I&#039;ll readily admit to that). I still have a lot to learn despite being a hardcore collector for 3 years.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Metal flow looks nothing like this -<b> EVER</b>!</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">Three years hardcore?&nbsp; Wow, you&#039;ve come far in just three years.&nbsp; All this time from the knowledge and TONE of all your posts I thought you were a decade&#039;s old expert!</span></p><p><br /></p><p>Pellinore, posted:&nbsp; &quot;I always thought these strigillations - they are not uncommon - were made when preparing the flans, with sharp metal brushes.&nbsp; [<span style="color: #ff0000">I disagree 100%. Please give your reference for this or is it hearsay?&nbsp; Is it the same place the big word strilla-whatever came from.&nbsp; Perhaps you&#039;ve spelled it incorrectly as I cannot find it on the Net. Thanks <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></span>] If they were occasioned by crystallization, you would expect seeing pictures of coins with crystals - pics before, and after, when the crystals were removed and left strigillitations on the bronze.&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">I&#039;m going to let you guys research this as Desertgem has done.&nbsp; Here are some things to consider.&nbsp; </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">1. Ancient coins CRYSTALIZE over time.&nbsp; We see the results.&nbsp; The folks who would have taken the &quot;before&quot; image you suggest have been dead for centuries.&nbsp; Besides, they did not have the photographic equipment.&nbsp; </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000">2. The size of the crystals forming in a liquid metal is largely dependent on the rate of cooling. </span>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in