Greek - Histiaea Euboea - 'Fake' or for 'Real'

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Topcat7, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. lehmansterms

    lehmansterms Many view intelligence as a hideous deformity

    I know I've written this here before (and at greater length, no doubt) but "fake" is possibly the worst possible word you can use to describe coins which, for whatever reason, are non-standard ("standard" here is meant to mean official mint issue coins as issued by the original authority). "Fake" is virtually meaningless in this context.
    With the exception of the foil-wrapped fourrées of the Republican and early Imperial period and some underweight and/or lower-grade silver pieces which are also encountered in the Greek coinage, none of these were made to deceive anyone. Generally they were made by neighboring tribes to copy the coins they saw working so well to facilitate trade in their place of origin. This is the nature of ancient (or "contemporary") copies in general, particularly of Hellenistic-era coinages. If you're talking about modern copies - well, with the exception of just a few known cases, these may have been made to deceive yet really seldom are all that successful in deceiving (unfortunately, they seem to be getting better at it). But seriously, looking at the OP's coin, does anyone really think someone went to the trouble of creating a profoundly-circulated and worn example of a piece which is widely available for a few dollars as doubtlessly authentic and/or ancient? I include ancient copies here too - they are every bit as much "ancient coins" as any made by the original issuers.
    About the only place "fake' even comes close to describing the situation is for modern copies made specifically to deceive - and it's a poor choice of words even there because it fails to define the category in any manner. Yes, they exist, but take another look - what are the chances the original coin would fall into that category?
    [​IMG]
    Modern copy meant to deceive? I think not
    Ancient contemporary copy, perhaps.
    Profoundly worn ancient official coin of less than the finest, early-issue style? That seems a lot more likely to me than any other plausible reason for this piece to exist.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    As with any subject, you will find differences of opinion and situations where there is a fact based right/wrong. When Barry Murphy said the coin was a fake, it is a fake. Certainly it is wrong to confuse ancient unofficial and barbarous moneys of necessity with modern coin replicas made for the specific purpose of making fool out of collectors like us and tourists on the Grand Tour. Buy what you want. Believe Barry. I do wish he had offered an opinion on my recent coin posted here and called a fake by one of our number. I
     
  4. Barry Murphy

    Barry Murphy Well-Known Member

    Which post Doug? I don’t read them all.
     
  5. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Conversation sent.
     
  6. IdesOfMarch01

    IdesOfMarch01 Well-Known Member

    A general observation:

    The value in posting a coin's picture and asking about its authenticity lies in the ability of the collectors here to research quickly the various "known fake coins" lists and find a match. When such a match is found, it becomes highly likely that the coin in question can be pronounced a fake, as long as its picture is sufficiently sharp and detailed to make a definitive comparison.

    In the case where a match isn't found, there will be plenty of opinions based solely on the coin's picture, without the benefit of examining the coin in hand. These opinions are just that -- personal opinions that may or may not be substantiated or supported by any accompanying explanation of the poster's opinion. Such opinions have, at times, been egregiously and demonstrably wrong.

    The value of relying on personal opinions from individuals you don't know, who haven't examined the coin in person, and (worst of all) in some cases won't even bother to explain the basis for their opinion, is worth exactly what you've paid for it. If the coin in question is important to you, there are a number of better options: (1) don't buy the coin and look for another from a dealer who guarantees their coins' authenticity; (2) buy the coin with the agreement that you can return it if it's later found to be a forgery; (3) have the coin examined in hand by an expert prior to purchase. Just believing a poster's opinion based solely on a picture is definitely NOT the way to make an informed decision.
     
    Alegandron and Orange Julius like this.
  7. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    I consider this one of the biggest fallacies in the hobby. Many coin sellers offer a lifetime guarantee of authenticity but the buyer is only protected if they find out the coin is false. That usually occurs when they try to sell the coin. This is fine for day traders who buy and sell in short order but it does nothing for those of us that are in it for the long haul. My personal record is owing a coin for 28 years before I found conclusive evidence it was fake. Yes, the seller had died but I have learned enough from the matter that you could say I benefited from the money 'lost'. I suspected the coin when I bought it and should have shown it to David Sear back then. There are many 101% honest sellers out there and many are quite expert in many coins. Few know them all. Even NGC excludes a (very) few coins from their list of accepted types or did the last I heard. We can only gather information to the best of our abilities and try to learn from our mistakes knowing full well that there will be mistakes. I prefer to make different mistakes each time but even that can be difficult. I am not in this to build a collection that will cause CNG to publish a book when I am finished. I would, however, enjoy seeing it with the sub-title "101 things that dumb Doug learned the hard way".
     
  8. IdesOfMarch01

    IdesOfMarch01 Well-Known Member

    So, your recommendation would be that collectors don't buy from sellers who guarantee their coins, or don't get an agreement from the seller that they can return the coin if it's later found to be a forgery?

    Either of my suggestions (1) and (2) are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for feeling comfortable about buying an ancient coin. If you want to feel comfortable about the authenticity of the coin you purchased, read my condition (3).

    Ultimately, the only way to feel completely comfortable about buying an authentic ancient coin is to fulfill conditions (1) or (2), and (3). I have, on this site, previously posted an example of a coin I won at auction that fulfilled condition #3 but later was judged to be a forgery, so condition #2 protected me. The idea that either condition #1 or condition #2 is a "fallacy" is just bewildering.
     
    Orfew likes this.
  9. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    Not at all. What I am saying is that a guarantee is worthless unless tested and explored. If a seller who knows nothing sells a hundred fakes to buyers who know nothing there might be a few returned when discovered but many will live in the buyer's collection for years (generations?) or be sold to others who know nothing about the coin or the guarantee. All worthwhile dealers guarantee their product but, to me, that needs to be accompanied by their knowing what it is they are guaranteeing. The world greatest expert and most honest seller of modern coins can guarantee a Parthian drachm even though he might know nothing about Parthia or drachms. Those who buy his coins are only protected if they learn.
     
    fomovore likes this.
  10. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    ..when Barry speaks, that IS prove....
     
  11. ominus1

    ominus1 Well-Known Member

    ..yeas they are out there...it calls to hone you skills of caution and detection along with much study...
     
    Alegandron likes this.
  12. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    In the U.S. series, the fact that a counterfeit is a copy of a common date in circulated condition makes no difference. The Chinese have hundreds of thousands of counterfeit common date, used Morgan Dollars, which would only be worth $25 or so if genuine. Of course they don’t contain any silver, but the cost of production must be low in China to make it worthwhile.

    They could the same thing with ancient coins.
     
  13. Marsyas Mike

    Marsyas Mike Well-Known Member

    An interesting discussion. I recently got one of these, a pretty poor specimen that is of a fairly poor style. While trying to attribute it, I came across this thread and started fretting that it might be a modern forgery. My hunch is that it is not, based on the wear - but this is only a hunch.

    Several of these for sale on FORVM come with this description:

    "Sear notes crude Histiaia imitations seem to have been struck in Macedonia just prior to the Roman victory in 168 B.C. During the Republic, Roman military mints sometimes struck imitative types to make local payments. Examples include Thasian imitatives in Macedonia and Philip Philadelphos imitatives at Antioch. This Histiaia type tetrobol is almost certainly one of the imitatives struck in Macedonia by the Roman military."

    The FORVM examples look somewhat like mine - crude style, crude planchets.

    Euboea Histaia Tetrobol Aug 2019 (0).jpg
    Euboea, Histaia Tetrobol
    (or Roman military imitation)
    (c. 196-146 B.C.)

    Head of Maenad wearing vine-wreath / [ISTI] AIEWN, Nymph Histaia seated on stern of galley holding mast.
    SNG. Cop. 517 (or sim. ?)
    (1.60 grams / 15 x 11 mm)
     
    Bing and Alegandron like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page