Exhibit: Alexander III Tetradrachm- 336-323 - Photographed 11/18/08- By Randygeki

Randy,

I am very sorry to tell you this.

But I think your Alexander may be a fake.

I have been collecting Alexanders for about 13 years. So I am very familiar with them. And this one just doesn't look right, especially the reverse.

The reverse's overall style and execution just looks wrong. And the dolphin is not like any dolphin I have ever seen on an Alexander. And the PO below the throne does not look like any PO I have seen on an Alexander.


I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of posting your coin on the Yahoo Group, CoinForgeryDiscussionList just to get confirmation before I mentioned it to you. The response I got from one of the experienced members was -

"In my opinion a bad quality modern forgery, and not any sort of ancient imitation or forgery."

The thread is HERE. (But I can't remember if you have to be registered to see the posts.)


There is enough doubt that I would urge you to pursue this further. I would suggest posting your coin on the Forum Ancient Coins sub-forum Fake Ancient Coin Reports and Discussion and see if the members there confirm this or not.


I hope I am proved wrong. Because it is obvious how much you like this coin.

But if it is fake I am sure you would want to know.


EDIT: If you do post it on Fake Ancient Coin Reports and Discussion a side view of the coin and a weight and diameter would be helpful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks and now worries
I'm pretty certain is not a fake though. I got it from a local shop I trust very much.
But I may be wrong about the dolphin.
I will pursue it though , and try to take better pictures. and if it is I'm sure I be able to get a refund.

this is what I was goin off of with my guess on the dolphin.






Alexander III AR Tetradrachm. Amphipolis mint. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin headdress / Zeus seated left, holding eagle and sceptre; dolphin before, PO below throne.

 

and i'm 99.99 % its not cast, if it's fake.

 

My camera batteries died these were the best I could get before it died though. I try and take some more later

 

I hope I am proved wrong.

But believe me, I would not have alarmed you on a whim and without good reason.

Since I wasn't 100% sure, I debated about whether to say anything at all. But when Alan on CoinForgeryDiscussionList agreed with my suspicions, then I felt I had to say something.

But again, I would really suggest that you post it on Fake Ancient Coin Reports and Discussion. I highly value the opinions of the core members there. They have some of the most knowledgeable people around on ancient coins.

But I would rather be wrong and look foolish than to not have said anything.

So I hope I end up looking foolish.

 

Randy,

The concern about authenticity is why I initially asked where you purchased the coin. I am far from an expert and don't have much experience in this series. I also hate it when people say that someone else's coin is fake if they're not 100% sure, so I didn't want to do that (because I'm not positive about it).

However, in your first set of pictures, the fields of your coin looked so black that it looked like they were made that way with ink or something and then rubbed off of the high points. However, in the second set of lighter scanned pictures it looks better. But the thing that concerns me the most with it is that the reverse looks very crude to me. Now, as you mentioned, there are many, many varieties of these, so I would not say that the crude style makes it a fake for sure.

The flan itself looks like it might be okay. I would certainly say that it's worth looking into more.

Let us know if we can help at all.

-tcore-

 

I also dont like to say a coin is fake unless I am 100% sure which is why I havent commented on this. I am a bit familiar with this coin type but not familiar enough with the large variety of different dies...I know it is a major target for fakesters...but my first opinion of this coin was that it is not genuine for several reasons. But I cannot say for sure and my personal policy is not to say unless I am 100% sure. I would also look into the authenticity. I often disagree with the guys at CFDL who I think are sometimes too quick to condemn (dont get me wrong, I applaud what they try to do), i would post it at Forum and see what those guys say...Its free and there you will find a few men who are probably the most knowledgable about ancient fake.

 

Another great place to post it would be over on Ancients.info, probably my favorite ancient coins site. If you don't want to sign up, I would be happy to post it for you. Please let me know if you'd like me to do that.

-tcore-

 

I would say your most definative answer would come from Dr. Ilya Prokopov over at Forum who literally wrote the book on fakes but ancients.info is also a great forum with many of the same experts as it is the forum attached to Vcoins which is, IMO, one of the best places to buy ancients...most reputable sellers sell there including forum.

 

"A quick look at the WildWinds database( http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/macedonia/kings/alexander_III/t.html ) indicates that the style and monograms are consistent with an Amphipolis issue, with perhaps a little less care than usual in the engraving of the reverse. The closest I could locate with a quick look is Price 133 (variant), although yours appears to have a shield rather than dolphin in the left field reverse.

So with the new images of the edge and the identification of few comparable examples noted on the WildWinds database, I'd say its now looking OK.


I agree that at first glance the reverse style appears most unusual, particularly for those like me who are more focused on the eastern mints of Alexander. However, when the Amphipolis issues of this period that are listed on the WildWinds database are examined it becomes apparent that reverse style and care taken by engravers is highly variable at this mint, To my, albeit inexpert, eye the reverse of this coin can be accommodated within the range style and engraving care evident in the database examples.

Let's hope an Amphipolis mint expert wades into the discussion. In the interim, this has caused me to ask myself; how in ancient times one became a celator? Aspiring celator's must have served an apprenticeship, or whatever the ancient equivalent of this was known as. At some point, less than expert engraving skills would have to be exercised in the real practice of coin engraving and production. Maybe this is what we are looking at on the reverse of this coin?

Hello all,
in my eyes, a style of this coin is closely with Paeonian coinage. It seems same with coinage of Audoleon, Alexander's series. About authencity my opinion it's OK, but have a fake patina, and, at the reason of rough "barbaric" style seems suspicious.
Regards"

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=49876.0

 

it seems that my picture taking it one of the problems with the coin lol

 

Wow....I was merrily reading along, learning about this coin and then wham! the thread takes a turn. I sure hope the fake issue is resolved one way or another for you Randy. Nothing worse than having a coin nag at you with doubt!

 

Its been resolved for me, but not sure about anyone else lol.
That problem was I guess, bad pics, questionable patina, poor workmanship on the reverse(either a novice, or someone that had to much stong wine)
I was never really to worried about.

I dont know of I should take anymore pics of my other coins now though lol.

 

In other words, its most likely OK.

 

Well I am glad you did this. All the entries are important works and worth reading. Th time you spent on this is deeply apreceated by myself and others.

Ruben

 

Thank you

If I'm able to get good pics I'll try and do another exhibit

 

you got another

 

Exhibit: Alexander III Tetradrachm- 336-323 - Photographed 11/18/08- By Randygeki http://www.cointalk.com/forum/t44629/

Code:

Art    Edu    Nui    FS     TOT           GT
5  	7  	8  	0  	20  		103

	
8 	3 	9 	0 	20 	
	

	
10 	2 	5 	0 	17 	
	

	
7 	9 	7 	0 	23 	
	

 

I was concerned at first that Randy's Alexander might be a fake. Although it's in the later Macedonian style, there are some things that on first sight just look "off".

In my defense, one response on CoinForgeryDiscussionList was that it was a fake. And when Randy posted on Forvm Ancient Coins, Lloyd who is very knowledgeable about Alexanders, had concerns at first. And another poster suggested that it may be Paeonian made. I also talked to a couple other collectors off forum and they had the same response, concern at first but then thought it genuine.

My point is that at first look, it looks a little "off" and causes concern. But then everyone agrees that it is genuine.


I told Randy in a PM that I apologize for any alarm I may have caused. But I would rather say something and be wrong than not say something when I should have.

I said that if anyone in the future doubts his coin, he can tell them, "Yeah, yeah. I've been through that before. It's genuine."

Randy jokingly suggested that maybe the engraver got into the strong wine before work. Maybe that is not far from the truth.

I hope you are joking. I like to see them! I'm just learning to take decent coin pictures so I will post some in the near future.

 

yeah I joking and thanks