I'm hoping other collectors can tell me their opinion on this coin. I believe it's a fake, mostly because of what looks like a rim running along the edge. On top of that it's only 2.5 g and looks more like a five cent Nickel coughed up by a consumptive cat than a centuries-old silver piece. Here's the edge. Notice, for instance, how some of the cracks only cross half of it, being cut short by the rim. That large gash also seems unnatural (see the reverse as well). I sent the coin soon after receiving it, and the seller has issued a refund. However, he mantains the coin is genuine and so declines to pay the return fees, as Ebay says he should in such cases. Perhaps if a few experienced collectors weigh in he'll be convinced. Or maybe it turns out I was mistaken, of course. By the way, before you throw a caveat emptor Ebaybus on me, the seller runs one of the largest and most reputed auction houses over there. (Besides, the coin was part of a lot and didn't look suspicious in the pictures he'd provided.)
Thank you. If the seller keeps playing dumb I'll definitely ask Ebay to intercede. Since people here seem more laid back than in most coin Forum(s) I've endured I'll share with you the uproarious conversation I've had with this auction house. Context: I sent the coin back, registered mail as usual; however, since the tracking site was in Portuguese they must have negleted to checked it, because a couple of days after marking the coin as shipped I get this: "Dear Mr. [Olisipo], I am very sorry, but the coins are 100 % authentic. We have checked them now two times. Sometimes underweight and overweight coins are in circulation, that does not mean that they are modern imitations! Best regards, [person]" Oh, have you? My response: "I assume your judgement was based solely on the two photographs on Ebay, since according to tracking information the coins haven't left Portugal yet. I entreat you to wait for when you've had a chance to analyze the coins in hand. I believe you'll see clearly that at least the Antoninus looks very problematic; specially the border features I mentioned, which are not visible in the photographs. If necessary I can send you a few of the pictures I took of the coin's edge. As for the Commodus, while denarii above standard weight do show up, 4 g is very alarming, specially for a specimen from the late second century. Perhaps I wouldn't have been concerned if it belonged to a different lot. I concede I can't be sure about that one. But I stand by what I said about the Antoninus. Thank you for your kind attention, Manuel." A few people might be surprised if I said which AH produced this parody.
Please submit this as a fake report on FORVM. If the seller maintains it is genuine I think there's a good case for him being listed as a notorious fake seller as well as he is either knowingly selling counterfeits or incompetent and should be avoided in either case. Also, are there any other suspicious items in his inventory?
I don't suppose checking the coin twice matters if you're blind. There is nothing right about it. The weight is way out of tolerance, and the fabric and style are bad. It's not even a coin you need to compare to known forgeries in order to make the determination.
I guarantee you there's ZERO chance he'll be blacklisted. He's not the small-fry Balkans dealer that Forum typically places there. This is a big retailer, a VCoins dealer, and when those are concerned Forum assumes by default a three monkeys attitude. Besides, the seller did refund what I paid for the coin, and unless he resells it - which I don't think he will - he won't qualify. I don't find blacklists very useful anyway. Better to trust experience and common sense.
So, I sent the AH those three pictures in the first post. They insist the coins are genuine - claiming they were checked by experts with five decades of experience - and are now saying that the marks on the edge show it was ground, yes, but merely because it was used as jewelry at some point. Ok, let's play along... I know of gold roman coins being attached to necklaces. Even silvers in appealing condition (I have a silver Franc from the 1880s someone soldered to a chain). But have you, in your experience as collectors, ever come across a coin in so dismal condition as that Antoninus being employed as adornment? Because I find that very, very hard to believe... Besides, wouldn't the file marks in that circunstance be uniform, forming a flat surface along the edge?
You say the ridge around the flan suggests the coin is a cast copy, but it is also consistent with ancient planchet production. Moreover, the presence of this ridge would inhibit mechanical forces during striking and it's entirely possible that some of the flan cracks from striking would extend to, but not past, this ridge. Moreover, in the photos, some of the cracks do cross this ridge. Most importantly, there are metal flow marks, indicating it was struck, not cast. My opinion is that it's genuine.
I can't find a reason to definitively condemn the coin using these images. The file marks certainly could have been done to even the edge prior to setting in a bezel. The filing wouldn't have to be perfect-- the edges would be covered by the bezel. Also, @Roman Collector raises valid points.
The point I see here is that the coin is so badly abused that it makes no difference. I can accept it as once genuine but as it is now the best thing to do with it is put it in a bezel and give it to someone who would not be more happy had you ruined a perfectly good coin.
You raise good points. Perhaps the case is not as clear-cut as I believed. But I'm still pending towards fake. First of all, I guess the coin could be put on a bezel - but would anyone do so? As Doug says, it looks badly trounced, and believe me, the effect is even worse in hand. Who'd take the effort to put this one in a bezel? Back in ancient times it would be kept for the value of its silver. In modern times, people who mount coins in jewelry value their aspect. All examples I've seen of coins in bezels were either reasonably attractive, had some interesting feature - or were forgeries people didn't care to clip. Flow marks can show in cast copies. I'm sorry my photos aren't sharp enough to reveal this, but in this coin flow marks only show up near the border; the inner field is flat or slightly pitted. The reverse has no flow marks at all. Perhaps this could result from ages of wear followed by harsh cleaning, but overall I find it unconvincing. Besides: Notice the area between 9 and 10 o'clock. The break in the flan does not cross over to the obverse. I don't see how this could happen if the coin were struck. I've also marked two other areas where I'd expect to see cracks, but there's nothing. Last but not least, there's @John Anthony's assertion that the style is off. I don't know the issues from this period well enough to weigh on that, but I've already had one collector in another forum say the same. A wrong style would preclude the coin from being genuine - at most it could have been an ancient forgery.
Well, as they say...if there's any doubt, there's no doubt. Doug's point is probably the best. The coin is not a keeper whether it's genuine or not.
