Numismatik Lanz - Buyer Beware

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is a genuine and counterfeit 1818 B-10 quarter. This is a die-transfer counterfeit. By your definition, the style is the same. But to any marginally-experienced collector, the style is obviously wrong due to the mushy/fuzzy look and from being made with modern machinery. The same is said about the Marcus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nemo you can not expect that he will refund you your money if it is not proven that the coin is fake!!!

Nemo you can not expect that he will refund you your money if it is not proven that the coin is fake!!!

NGC (and Barry Murphy) are not always right, they are only humans and they make mistakes too. There are some slabbed and confirmed fakes out there.

Without of any prove that the coin is fake they do not have to withdraw any coin and I would not do so only becasue of a NGC condemnation if the coin would look ok for me and I guess the coin looks ok for Dr. Lanz.

And if Dr. Lanz has actually resold without permission of owner wouldn´t be ok. I do admit that.
I guess that this was a misunderstanding and he somehow thought you wanted it this way, if he had the permission to do so or not I can not know.

 

Your defence of Lanz is becoming ridiculous. You can’t blame people for insinuating that you are somehow closely connected with him.

 

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is a genuine and counterfeit 1818 B-10 quarter. This is a die-transfer counterfeit. By your definition, the style is the same. But to any marginally-experienced collector, the style is obviously wrong due to the mushy/fuzzy look and from being made with modern machinery. The same is said about the Marcus."

Mushy/fuzzy look has no influence to the STYLE, it only makes the details softer not more and not less.

If I polish or hashly clean a coin to achieve this mushy/fuzzy look, will the coin then be from different style = artist?
Lol, you made my day.

You are showing me 2 coins from the same dies + style + artist.
The fakes will be in same style as the mother used to create the transfer dies or csat fakes or galvanos. If some details would have been recutted in casting mould or transfer dies which are different than the details which were in authentic dies, we have a NEW STYLE AND ARTIST for the RECUTTED details.


Identical style = same artist.

Different style = different artist

By writing wrong style you imply different artist.

Style is the way artists create artworks in their own individual way with their own specific characteristics, that allows us to tell who the artist was.

Different style is not the same as different fabric and problems (detail loss) related to cast and transfer die fakes.

 

I have been reading this discussion with amazing. My only conclusion is that the consumer has a very bad position and that the terms of sale and the way the seller operates would be at least contrary to law here. The seller is professional and the consumer has additional protection by law as he is the 'lesser knowledgable '. Precisely because of what you are saying here. I really dont understand why you dont understand. Proof? Yes, of course. But to what extend can you demand proof? It should be enough that the autenticity is questionable with written opinion of experts. Period. Whether or not it is only 99% fake and not proven 100%.

Say you buy a car. Your seller says the breaks are fine. Another garage says they are not and the car is rubbish unfiaxable. Will you feel comfortable still driving it just because your seller is a professional seller too? Or is a crash only proof enough?

 

By this logic all “guarantees of authenticity” are meaningless and worthless.

The coin in question was examined in hand by two expert numismatists, each with decades of experience, and they deemed it a forgery. Why do you believe these two opinions are insufficient?

Who do you think should provide the opinion? Obviously not the seller...

 

3500 views and 105 replies later.....

 

@TIF You are missing the point, Nemo has not proven with 100% certainty that the coin did not exist in antiquity....only 99%. I think Dr. Lanz is right. @Nemo has not used the ultimate tool to disprove the authenticity of the coin.




Who cares what all trustworthy experts in the field say when @Nemo has not used this to go back in time and check every single coin ever struck to make sure his doesn't match any of the authentic ones. Is that so unreasonable? At the very least we need the signed affidavit from the ancient coiners verifying they never struck that coin. Well, Nemo, where are the affidavits from the 2,600 year old coiners? Where are they? Show us the affidavits.

 

I personally think this discussion has been fascinating, particularly since some of the people involved in authenticating this coin (and other coins mentioned) have been a part of it.

 

The dies of the left coin were made by a US die sinker in 1818. The dies of the right coin were made by a Chinese counterfeiter in the 2000s. The way the dies and coin were manufactured caused the fabric of the coin to be entirely wrong. Not the same dies. Not the same artist. Not the same style.

Your ignorance is hilarious.

 

Fabric is not style !
If you use the words "wrong style" I will look if the coins is engraved in wrong style by a modern artist, so I will do a small die study and I think this is how most would have understood this!
There are definitions of the meanings of words and how they are supposed to be used!
It is either a misunderstanding and the word style can have little bit different meanings and can be used different in English than in German or I misunderstood you because, so far I have only read in posts wrong style if it was always about modern hand cutted dies with wrong style. In combination with transfer die fakes, I have never ever read in a post about modern or ancient transfer dies that anyone used it in the same way as you do. (And I do love fakes and read everything I can find in internet about fakes)

This is leading nowhere !

USA have their laws and Germany has its laws.

To resell the coin without the permission of the owner would be for example not legal in Germany. I do not know what consequences it could have for Dr. Lanz if he would get accused for it and I do not care because, it would meant he did something wrong which can imho not be justified.

If it is actually true Dr. Lanz took nemo the chance to let another expert check the coin and then go to court if the coin is actually fake to get his full money fake or if nemo would change his mind in future and then thinking the coin is genuine to resell it somewhere else for a possibly better price.

I understand that nemo is not happy, but it would be still the smartest to contact Dr. Lanz again telling him why the coin is fake (really good arguments) and then if he still rejects to fully refund you, you could consider to court, not only becasue of the money but to show that it is not ok what he is doing that he will stop it.

There is no legal need to take the coin back if there is no real proven evidence that the coin is actually fake and if the seller is not notified that and why the coin is fake, seller has to get the opportunity to verify if it is actually true or not.

I am not qualified to tell if the electrum coin is really fake, I am not familiar with this coins so I do not know if Dr. Lanz or NGC is correct.

If there are serious and reliable doubts that a coin is most likely fake it should be of course withdrawn and the buyer fully refunded to keep the reputation of the auction house.

I assume that Dr Lanz thinks that he is really good in authentication of this type of coins and I guess he possibly even could think that he is better than NGC if it comes to the authentication of this coins so he is rejecting a refund without proven evidence that the coin is actually fake. I do understand his point of view, but if doubts are rised concering this coin, he should have at least (maybe he has), asked an expert ( in best case the best expert for this type of coin, who has published books for this coins) to get a second oppinion.
And if this best experts say fake, of course withdrawing the coin.

I do not know and I can not know if Dr. Lanz or NGC is better in authenticating this coins and I do not think that the ones who are hree acting against Dr. Lanz are really familiar with this coins and so qualified to judge if Dr Lanz or NGC is right.

Maybe The coin is actully authentic who knows, NGC is imho not that good.

 

Hubert, I mean Lolli, I think you're missing the point of this whole discussion. You, I mean Lanz, sold a coin that wasn't his to sell. Fake or real it doesn't matter. At that point, Nemo is owed a full refund for what he paid for the coin. End of discussion.

Somehow you are defending Lanz by pointing to fakes in Goldberg catalogs. I don't understand that connection. I could go on sixbid and in the next hour show you 75 fakes or I could go through the Lanz sale where the 3 coins came from I posted earlier and show you more forgeries, but that doesn't excuse the actions Lanz has taken with Nemo's coin. Yes everyone makes a mistake. Not everyone sells a coin they don't own and don't have permission to sell.

Perhaps you aren't reading all the posts in this thread. You again brought up Andrew McCabe. He's replied to this thread twice and he agrees the 3 coins I posted are obvious forgeries.

Concerning NGC, we are not the industry police. Just because we think a coin is fake doesn't mean the dealer has to give a refund. I will say though, that of the top 5 experts in the world on ancient coin forgery, I think 2 of them work at NGC, and if we say your coin is fake, there are pretty good odds that we are correct and can prove it. Based on Lanz's sales in the last 10 years, I wouldn't put him in the top 20, and if you can't tell any of the coins I posted earlier were forgeries I wouldn't put you in the top 20 either. Have I made a mistake? Sure. I've been here 3 years and have had nearly 150,000 coins cross my desk. I know of 1 fake that made it into a holder that had a long pedigree that I failed to look at closely enough (that coin is no longer in a holder or on the market). And I know of maybe a dozen other fakes that made it into holders in the previous 8 years before I got here when NGC Ancients was 1 man operation. We have no financial interest in any of the coins we look at and we don't care who submitted them or what sales they came from. We look at every coin the same way. No dealer can give an unbiased opinion on a coin they sold. We have no bias on any coin we look at. We are reluctant to call coins forgeries, but when we do we have pretty good evidence to back up our opinions.

Concerning me contacting Lanz and explaining why the electrum coin was fake, I doubt that will happen. He's been quite vocal in his disapproval of NGC and I don't feel like I owe him anything. He's dug himself into a deep enough hole over this coin already.

Barry Murphy

 

Lolli, you said "Maybe The coin is actully authentic who knows, NGC is imho not that good. "

Prove it. Provide me evidence as to why you think this. Not 1 coin that we made a mistake on, but consistent, provable evidence to back up this statement. Maybe ask the IAPN why they wanted us on their forgery committee.

And if you're not Lanz, why do you hide behind a fake user name? Maybe I could give you more credibility if I knew who I was talking to. If you're not willing to identify yourself, your opinions really mean nothing to me.

Barry Murphy

 

I'm reading this thread because I couldn't get to work this morning. My neighbor sold my car during the night.

 

Did not really want to post in this topic any more. Mostly because, as I wrote before, I can and will not comment on the case itself. (I posted a link to other people's experiences with Lanz but do not have the expertise.) However, this is getting a little odd, I think.

First somebody doubts, in more than one post, that Lanz has a doctor's degree - probably because it has been used excessively in some other posts. And now anybody who does not use something that looks like a "real" name gets accused of hiding behind a fake user name? Hmm.

 

@Lolli What do I know? After all, I'm only an attorney in Florida. I can tell you for a fact though that in all 50 states of the US there is a tort called "conversion of personal property." Lanz cannot sell another person's property without their permission. And even if there was no such law in Germany, altering and selling another person's property without permission is highly immoral...no matter where in the world you are. It is not good business practice and no consumer should find that acceptable.

 

What a coincidence! I'm reading this on my phone. My neighbor sold my laptop last night...

 

My name is meangless!
I am only an amateur collector and autistic, that is very helpful if it comes to ancient coins because I can see very reliable if something is wrong with a coin because it hurts me and in my brain is burnt how authentic and how fake coins look like and their characteristics but in other cases it is not really helpful and even bad to be autistic. If it comes to authentication important are experience, knowledge and talent. I have only talent this is why I can never ever be the best or one of the best, because some other have talent too + knowledge and experience. And I lost much money with fakes and some even sold me fakes when I was a child and no matter what collected stamps, coins ancient articacts there were always fakes and I lost money and I did not get my money back of course so I REALLY hate fakes. i stopped collecting but later started again collecting coins but I tried to become so good that I would never ever be burnt again.

@ Barry Murphy

Festa here

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=476718
NGC graded About Uncirculated and sold as authetnic

Resold as fake

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=359374


Tryphon (withdrawn, published fake, legend error), Agathokles (IAPN condemned), Claigula (admited to be fake by him), Ptolemy V (withdrawn).
Threads for fakes except for Fest are in Forvm-
Enough? I am not sure about the Seleukos (at least imho suspicious and die linked coins including mine were IBSCC condemned).
Can add links if Barry Murphy is requesting them.

Barry Murphy at the beginnin I really admired you and thought you would be the best I even bought from your vcoin store (but it was not because of you, the coins were just pretty good for a good price^^). But because I liked and admired you I looked in your store and found some coins I liked and bought. I do buy the coins and not the dealer
And some of your post at cfdl and ancients.info were really great and educational so I really liked and admired you.

Then you wrote (do not know where) that you are in your opinion better than Sear and you were acting imho pretty arogant and I really hate if someone is making himself bigger than others and doing like he is the best, I see this as a challenge to look for NGC slabbed fakes and I found some.
I would have never ever looked for NGC slabbed fakes if you would not have said this about Sear, which was imho not nice,
not sure if you are actually better than Sear (I can not tell) but if you are better show it with deeds and not with words.
I do really like Sear and respect him even if he is not perfect but he is a good guy and very good if it comes to authentication of coins.

Instead of telling

"that of the top 5 experts in the world on ancient coin forgery, I think 2 of them work at NGC."

show how good you are with deeds, for example by detecting really high quality fake I am not able to detect so I and others can learn something.

I would be for example impressed if you would be able to detect and condemn coins sold by Nomos ( their experts are really good if it comes to fakes).

To know that a coin is authentic or fake is not that hard but to prove it can be in some cases very very difficult.

I have in most cases the problem that I do know that a coin is fake but to prove it is really really difficult, die studies, knowledge about issue could be required time and money consuming and not worth it in most cases.

The other Balas at current Goldberg auction seems to be fake too.

Published transfer die fake, damaged ear (hole), which is present on all fakes but not on authentic coins form these dies.
Different reverse die as on the published transfer die fakes but same obverse die. Defects and soapy details, obverse has a tendancy to be concave, look rather pressed than struck ...

https://www.sixbid.com/de/ira-and-l...c&priceFrom&page=1&limit=50&displayMode=large

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=HdmjjN7vkxI=

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=ov8fd8izW0Y=

To find normal fakes is not anything special, I am only impressed if someone can condemn high quality fake I could not condemn myself.

 

@ Sallent , to sell the coin without permission, is not legal in Germany as far as I know, too.
If nemo goes to court it will be most likely not so nice for Dr. Lanz.
If nemo can prove that Dr. Lanz sold without permission (his chat), Dr. Lanz will be most likely prosecuted and he would have to pay most likely a fine.
I would ask a lawyer or person familiar with German law first to be sure.

Nemo could tell of course Dr. Lanz, that he was not allowed to sell the coin and that he would do legal actions if he will not refund his money.
Not sure if it will help.

But to write Dr. Lanz and giving him the arguments against authenticity would be imho the most diplomatic way and could be successful and would give Dr. Lanz the chance to state his point of view, maybe he has himself contacted an expert for this cointype (I hope so, because I would do so) and this expert told him the coin is ok.

 

The biggest problem was the coin was returned for a refund and no 'refund' was given until the seller altered the coin and resold it, and then the seller only 'refunded' the amount he got for the second sale. At no point did the seller negotiate to be the middleman or agent to resell the coin for the first buyer and only give the second sale's amount to the first buyer. Lanz should have refunded the amount it was purchased for by the first time and then Lanz would have again owned the coin and it would be his choice to do what he wanted with it. But he did not. He effectively duped and cheated his customer(first buyer). And he did in a very dishonorable way, IMO.

This is not a normal practice of business. The first buyer clearly wanted his money back on a coin that could not get slabbed at NGC. Weather or not Lanz thinks NGC is qualified to authenticate that coin is not the issue. Once Lanz said to return the coin, he should have clearly refunded the purchase price.