Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;IdesOfMarch01, post: 3005994, member: 39084&quot;]These two coins and this topic continue to mystify me, partly because it makes little sense to me that a forger would purposely copy the graffito on the OP coin&#039;s obverse.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is no doubt that at least one of these is a fake.&nbsp; For me, the evidence is not so much the similarity in the devices, but rather the unlikeliness of the identical flan defects.&nbsp; I&#039;ve circled just three of them (there are many more) in the picture below:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]744774[/ATTACH]</p><p>The defects are in <i>exactly</i> the same place, and are pretty much the same shape.&nbsp; The statistical probability of a flan partly cracking (on striking) in exactly the same place and shape is zero.&nbsp; So at least one of the above coins is a forgery, but the other is possibly the original from which the forgery was copied. </p><p><br /></p><p>Regardless of which coin was the original -- or possibly the original was an entirely different authentic coin -- why would the forger bother to etch a graffito into the obverse?&nbsp; That&#039;s a lot of individual work on each forgery for little, if any, increase in authenticity. </p><p><br /></p><p>Or could the graffito have been part of the die or mold from which the forgeries were made?&nbsp; But why would a forger do this, since to do so (1) might identify the original authentic coin from which the forgery was made if it has the graffito, and (2) clearly identifies the copies as forgeries since two different ancient coins pretty much will never have the same graffito, in the same location, on the coins&#039; surfaces.</p><p><br /></p><p>At least for me, the mystery continues.[/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