Numismatik Lanz - Buyer Beware

As regards your personal attack on paparoupa by referring to the title he holds on FAC it is shameful that the owner of that site titles someone a parasite just because that person doesn't buy from him. One of the main reasons I stopped frequenting that forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Lanz is selling many thousand of coins per year, he has at the moment 232311 evaluations and the number of bad evaluations is extremely low !
The bad feedbacks on facebook are not representative.
If you sell so many coins mistakes can happen and his employees are doing mostly the ebay listings and so it can happen that a fake slips through from time to time but who doesn´t make mistakes we are all humans.

"Dr. Hubert Lanz ist auch ein Vorreiter in Sachen moderne Technik und Münzhandel."

at end of article

https://muenzenwoche.de/world-money-fair-award-fuer-hubert-lanz/

Ebay homepage

http://www.ebaystores.de/NUMISMATIK-LANZ/Mich-Seite

at the end

"Herzlichst
Ihr
Dr. Hubert Lanz"

He really has a doctor title and he is allowed to carry it.
To carry a tile you do not have is a criminal offence in Germany and will be punished with a fine or prison!


What is wrong with the Mithridates III?

From same reverse die are :

the example sold in "Bank Leu AG & Münzen und Medaillen AG. KUNSTFREUND: Grechische Münzen Aus der Sammlung eines Kunstfeundes. Zurich, 28 Mai 1974"

Specimen in Paris and London, of both are picture available online, too lazy to look for links.


To the Mithridates III, the upper part of the B (beta) of Basileos seems to be different than on other coins of the same dies. And on the British museum coin exactly the upper part of the B is missing and this part of the B which is missing on the BM coin looks different on the coin sold by Dr. Lanz. So some could argument and think that they used the BM specimen as host to make transfer dies and then they recutted the missing part of the B (beta) and recutted the obverse die a little bit. But the differnece of the B is imho most likely due to slippage and bad strike. the obverse die is only a new so far unpublished obverse die not more and not less so nothing special.
This issue has a serious problem with slippage, many of these show a die shift on the reverse especially on the letters !!!!
And then some could be worried because of the softness and detail loss on the reverse and that letters become thinner and damaged, which is a typical problem of transfer die fakes but it is only due to worn dies and dmaged dies and a bad strike and slippage.
There are actually known transfer die fakes of this dies (same reverse die) known by IAPN and published IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 18 page 6, they were forgeries of the Galvano Boys (British Museum forgers) and they are not really dangerous and I think that the coin of Dr Lanz could have been accidently confused to be one of these forgeries

Now seriously I do not like the coin but if I remember correctly an expert who I admire and who is familar with this issue thinks that the coin is ok and I do rely on his opinion.

There is a book about this coins available for free

http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bss-9-files/bss-9-04-callatay


And different version powerpoint here

https://www.academia.edu/9884669/Th..._Mithradates_III_to_Mithradates_V_Powerpoint_

The First Royal Coinages of Pontos (from Mithridates III to Mithridates V) François de Callataÿ

 

Be sure to send PayPal EVERY email response from Lanz, as well as EVERY email you sent him!
He has hung himself in those responses!
Ask PayPal precisely the refund you want, and why you want it.

 

I guess it’s worth a try, I’m not expecting to come out on top with this one.

 

I said that one was fairly obvious. The style is just wrong

 

So what Lanz has so many 'evaluations'? Ancient ground has 14803, with 99.8% positive and he is selling fake coins every single day: https://www.ebay.com/sch/ancientground/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=

The whole issue is not only that this coin is possibly fake but that Nemo owned the coin and returned it to Lanz for a refund and Lanz sells the coin on Ebay while he didn't have permission to. I also don't call this even close to customer service, referring to your previous post stating this.

 

TypeCoin971793 :
"I said that one was fairly obvious. The style is just wrong"

Style is fine you can ask Andrew McCabe if you do not believe me ^^


Vienna Museum same style and artist

http://www.ikmk.at/object?lang=de&id=ID55963&view=rs

other authentic coins from this issue

http://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-510.1

Same obverse die as Roma (same die flaw right to the beard on obverse )

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1537795

And same dies as Gorny

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3380921

Lanz has some smoothing mentioned in description

"https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5059921

CNG is from the same obverse die, same die flaw at about 7 o clock over the strange running dotted border (dotted border is not as circular as they generally are ^^)

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1482127

And same obverse die as Gemini specimen, same die flaw at about 7 o clock over the strange running dotted border

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4907973

The coin is from the same artis as the one of the Vienna example almost identical reverse die.
Look for example the strange R on the reverse and the letters and the design itself which is in from the same style with same individual peculiarities.

The Lanz, Gorny and Roma coins show an almost identical reverse design to the Vienna piece (imho possibly to identical) so they are either from a very very similar reverse die of the same artist or recutted transfer die fakes.
I think that the chance that the dies have been recutted in ancient times are very low but I still think it has to be considered.
I guess a die study would be needed to solve if there has been some recutting or not.
What is really worrying me is that there are possibly two die flaws on the reverse die, left to the top of the I of IMP and there is another possible die flaw right to the nose of the woman on the reverse. Same die flaw would mean same dies because there are so many factors which can influence where and what kind of die flaw occurs that you can be certain that coins with same die flaw must be from the same die.

Differences to the Vienna piece are I of IMP and toga of man.
I looks smaller on the Vienna piece.

The Lanz piece has been "Leicht geglättet" means smoothed this is actually making authentication more difficult.

I do not like the Lanz piece and I had some concerns about this coin but I do not know if it has something to do with the smoothing.

 

Yes I agree the style of the fake Lanz Murcus is absolutely correct because as is invariably the case with high end fakes it is derived from a genuine coin with known dies. The fabric and supposed strike seem entirely wrong to me. I mentioned a plastic look to it. The relief is wrong in the manner that the edges of the devices of a plastic toy coin are raised from the surfaces. It is a fake made using a copy of a real coin as its basis and then improved and changed in such a way as to leave an unnatural effect that would not have been produced by the ancient dies being struck with the normal strike effects and deficiencies seen on the genuine coins of Murcus. The surfaces are also not typical. Overall the coin looks entirely wrong as compared to other genuine Murcus types.

The Octavian / Mark Antony is in evidently the wrong style. The Caesar elephant - I know what things are wrong with it but don't want to discuss all here as some are design related matters that a forger might address for his version 2. Much of the problems relate to the fabric and strike which are less easily faked.

A competent numismatic expert should have sensed something wrong with these three coins, or at least that they were odd as compared with the norms, without necessarily being able to say exactly why, but sufficiently so as to refuse their consignment.

As with all discussions on fakes, whatever I write will not sound satisfactory to all because much of what I want to say is about matters of strike and fabric where I see what's wrong but can't easily put into words; some things which are quite specific I don't wish to explain in detail as a forger might the attempt to fix.

For me, I continue to collect from those expert dealers I really trust, combined with my own expertise and old provenance researches. It's not that an old provenance is a protection against forgeries, but that the forgeries from 100 years ago are invariably much worse made (because the forgers did not have the photographic databases to get things just perfect) and more obvious. 1930s catalogues generally have either genuine coins or very badly made forgeries that would never deceive me. I'm usually very happy to own an evidently genuine coin that was also part of a collection owned 100 years ago or more.

 

I can't speak for his coins, but I will say that he apparently has a pair of, erm, glands that are quite genuine. And large.

 

I have gone to just about 100 percent from great collections. I find e-bay just to high plus the risk.

 

I believe I bought something from him awhile back. Luckily I did not spend more than 90 €. But after reading this, I will stay away from him. And no, I don't know if my coin is real. At some point I will take pics of it or bring it with me to a coin show to get some opinions.

 

So, like mentioned before by Barry Murphy, he 1) adjusted your property thereby changing the nature of it and 2) sold it without your permission and 3) as such says he has no more liability as a professional party. I am a lawyer in Holland and from that perspective there are so many wrongs in those actions. Enough for full liability and compensation completely. You would not even have to prove the coin being fake.... Dont know if that will help your case , but that is a way to go with this?
Sorry to hear your bad story though.... hope for you it will turn out good....

 

The Murcus coin looks fake due to the lack of metal flow. I don't think it's struck. It has nothing to due with style or dies. I also don't like the Gorny coin or the Roma coin. They all look pressed.

Pointing to die links as proof of authenticity when the links you point to are suspicious as well doesn’t help to prove your point.

Concerning the Mithradates, I don’t feel like rehashing it all over again. The reverse was taken from the BM coin, and the coin isn’t struck.

Barry murphy

 

Thanks @Limes , that's the argument in a nutshell. Sadly, litigating this would be impossible unless he was in my own town and I could sue him personally. I will try to pursue this through Paypal and Ebay in the off chance they will do something.

I appreciate all the kind words and honest observations. Just for the record, I'm not against anyone buying from Lanz, I just hoped my folly would prevent others from blindly making a similar mistake.

 

You took a chance, and got burned...........you knew what you were getting into....... the type of dealer he was (is) and yet you still hazard a bid (and win) on one of his coins. There's no other way to put this......the shame is on you because you knew what he was (is).

Shame is too strong a word. Opportunity seldom presents itself, and when it does, the temptation to react is knee-jerk. You were a collector looking for an exceptional coin at a reasonable price, but you knew this guy was 'dirty'. Why take a chance? "it might be the real deal".........from a dirty thief? Old saying: There is no honor among thieves.

 

I can't imagine any situation of you not winning this with eBay if he literally told you he cleaned it resold it and would only give you the money from the resale instead of a refund he promised.

Call someone up and talk to them on the phone it should be very simple, if they won't help ask for a manager. Sometimes you just have to call back the next day too if the people working that day are wasting your time

 

Cheap or Good - you don't get both.

 

You won’t get anywhere with eBay or PayPal, it’s not there problem and they can’t take money from Lanz and give it to Nemo just because he says it was his coin. Even if they could, it would only be for the amount the coin sold for, which Lanz already said he would give him. And eBay won’t do anything to Lanz, he sell too many coins on their site.

Unfortunately it’s not really enough money to do anything about. Take the money from Lanz that he offered and move on. Posting it here and other places will cost lanz more in the long run. It really is short sighted on Lanz’s part. Regardless of whether he thought the coin was fake or not, he should have just given the refund and resold the coin if he thinks it’s real. It’s a small amount of money and he would have avoided this entire discussion.

Barry Murphy.

 

That's the absolute last place on earth that I would go to for medical care.........they still use leaches?

 

Have to disagree, if he bought it on eBay using Paypal it is both their problems and they can and do force refunds and rip money back from sellers all the times in situations like this. Of course all he would get is a full refund, but that is all it sounds like he wants anyways and was only given a half refund. Whether or not they do anything to the account or pay the refund themselves because he is a big seller is another matter, but he absolutely should fight the the significant amount of money he should have gotten on a full refund.