fake or genuine

Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 2.21.25 PM.png
Screen Shot 2016-11-17 at 2.20.59 PM.png

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Fake, sorry.

 

Now
Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 8.15.22 PM.png
Screen Shot 2016-11-26 at 8.17.32 PM.png

 

Some specific items about this coin that make it an obvious fake are:

(1) the almost-perfect roundness of the coin (ancient coins are NEVER round)

(2) the raised rim on the reverse (ancient coins don't have raised rims)

 

what about this round

Screen Shot 2016-11-27 at 5.51.31 PM.png
Screen Shot 2016-11-27 at 5.50.18 PM.png

 

The second coin appears to be more of a genuine coin than the first, but I'm not the one to make the call. It would be helpful if you can provide weight and measurement as well. Wait for others to respond.

BTW, welcome

 

19,67/20,00mm
4,22g

 

I am 95% certain that this coin is a fake. The surfaces of this coin (not the legends or devices) are bumpy and hilly (for lack of a better description) and are dissimilar from any other authentic Roman gold coin I've ever seen.

If the weight you give above (4.22g) is for this coin, then it is DEFINITELY a fake, since gold coins of this type typically weigh 7.3g - 8.2g.

 

Looking up this coin on ACSEARCH, I notice that it sold in March 2015 at the Roma auction for over $200K. If this is the same coin, then I'm clearly wrong, and it is indeed authentic. I defer to Roma's expertise in this case, and I doubt they would have failed to detect if it were fake.

 

I believe he is referring to the weight of the second coin, also an imitation of a denarius. The aureus I guessed to be authentic before your post.

 

IMO, both coins are crude fakes. Will some poster like to comment on anything they see on either coin that would cause them to doubt this?

The fact that they appear to be made of silver does not count...

 

The silver issues are clearly fakes according to my eyes and the consensus of posts...but the gold coin intrigues me and I suspect it's genuine and wonder how you came upon it.

 

I agree with the consensus here - the silver coins are crude fakes and the gold one possibly a genuine piece.

 

When a new member fails to ask politely for coin help and merely blurts-out "Need Coin-ID", then I'm always a bit turned-off ... plus, when their coins seem to be a tad suspect, then I tend to get twice as defensive

... but maybe it's just me? ... maybe you'll become a full-time member in good standing? (I hope so => the more the merrier)

Ummm curious, where did you stumble across these coins? (I sure hope that they're genuine ... genuine always makes me smile)

Cheers, ficus

 

This, and it seems like most of the time they (often rudely) reject the consensus that their coin is fake. Or they just don't bother responding back.

 

My perspective is that we should avoid a rush-to-judgment about these types of posts.

When someone new to ancients first holds an ancient coin, two questions immediately come to his/her mind:

1. Is it genuine?
2. How much is it worth?

These questions are natural and understandable. The lack of articulateness in their initial threads or posts isn't uncommon on this site -- really, how many posters here spend more than a few seconds composing and reviewing their threads or posts? Also, English might not be their primary language. So a little tolerance is warranted in most cases.

I do agree that adversarial and belligerent responses by the original poster are a different matter and should be ignored or removed. But that's more often the exception than the rule.

 

I could live with rules among the regular posters here that would allow us to ignore questions 1 & 2 from people who violate point 3 (last paragraph above) especially when the coins shown are not beginner's coins. I have absolutely no understanding of the forces at work that cause anyone to ask ANY of us to expertise a $200k coin based on a photo and suggest anyone who, on his own, buys a coin like that is either being very foolish or planning on dealing in fake or stolen merchandise. Those few of our members who might possibly consider buying that level coin have enough sense to employ the services of a dealer/advisor/agent. They do not ask Coin Talk amateurs to look at photos. Even if we consider some of our number might be somewhat skilled in the matter (lets remember Barry Murphy has posted here), professionals like Sear and Vagi at least get to see the coin in hand before making a call.

I'm perhaps unfriendly enough to suggest that we need not offer advice on value to people who have never before posted on Coin Talk. We expect users to meet certain criteria for number of posts before they are allowed to use all the features of the site. Maybe one of those limited features should be free investment advice.

I see nothing wrong with telling people when they show us the lowest level obvious fakes but lets not go beyond our pay-grade and say $200k coins are worth the money. We have paid experts who will do that.

More Genuine? Maybe we need a new entry on slab labels where we will add 1-5/5 ratings (as we have for strike and surface) according to how 'Genuine' a coin is. 1=Definitely Fake, 2=Probably Bad, 3=Toss Up, 4=Could Fool Me and 5=Take It To The Bank (note that none of us will 'guarantee' even a 5 level to be genuine).

 

You and I differ on this point.

I remember what it's like being a complete novice in any number of areas, and asking "dumb" questions (about those areas) that would make experienced individuals roll their eyes. But my questions were genuine and sincere, even if they were a little too eager or naive.

No, I don't think that all these "how much is it worth?" and "is this genuine?" posts are equally genuine or sincere, but what's the harm in giving the benefit of the doubt to the poster, at least until he/she proves to be something other than a novice just learning the proper CoinTalk etiquette?

 

We're all very caring and social folks on this coin-site ... I'm sure that the new guy will figure out how to fit in with the herd