Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Alex22, post: 4901445, member: 102942&quot;]Thanks [USER=96898]@Orielensis[/USER]. The Kölner Münzkabinett and the provenance are the two major weights that make me hope this will turn out well, still considering that mistakes can happen, and none of the above factors rule out the presence of false positives in their data points (i.e. coins).</p><p><br /></p><p>I am only equipped with what I read about coin authentication, and have very little experience in handling coins other than the ones in my collection and a few times I visited coin shows. From purely theoretical viewpoint, which I know is not enough at all, the features that call my attention are listed below. Please, consider this (<i>and debunk</i>) as a curious example of how someone only educated through written material would look at this coin.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>a)</b> The Pompey’s chin has an excess metal (merging the chin with the edge), beyond where the design should allow, and, as per the complete obverse design, there is no other design element that can make usual die damage in between elements. This can however also be a mere result of the chin being close to the edge. So no opinion here.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>b)</b> The two deep separating dimples under the “S” on the obverse seem to be done next to an excess metal, from both sides, which now forms a strip under “S”. I struggle to see how this could have been a scratch on top of a very large, out of border, original S, beyond the expected design. This may also be a result of a die damage or some kind of banker’s mark though. Have brought the magnified figure of that part, and a similar strip of metal next to it, on top of Pompey’s hair, in figure O1, but no opinion here too.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>c)</b> The coin wear may come from harsh cleaning, but it is actually very high relief. Still, there is no 90-degrees sharp outline anywhere. Most of the borders are rough, with wavy slopes. As before, this can also be benign, due to the wear and the corrosive forces acted on the surface through time, or due to the way the dies were carved. No strong opinion here.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>d)</b> Small excess metals next to the design borders, especially next to the prow on the reverse (figure R3). Again, can simply be because of how the die was carved, or because of a die damage. No strong feeling here too.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>e)</b> In figure R5, next to the face of Neptune, can be a very small banker’s mark, but may also look like one of those things described as a “<i>finger in a butter</i>” effect on the surfaces of cast coins. As before, inconclusive from my side.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>f)</b> The edges have these parallel scratches all over (figures E1-E2), at parts not on the most elevated loci of the edge. Maybe someone did that to deter the attention from the point (<b>g</b>) below, or simply this is a benign result of harsh polishing of the edges while cleaning. No opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>g)</b> Lots of consecutive small dimples (figures E1-E2) across the whole edge, along the centre of the edge. Can be remnants of the border between the cast halves, or simply common damages on the edge of an ancient coin. No opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>h)</b> Have no experience to differentiate whether the cracks (E3-E10) are deep enough or superficial. No opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Overall, no strong feeling from any of the individual points from me. This is just my first coin where many individual ones happen in combination. My eye is however not trained at all on how to consider all these in combination, and how to also see the combined signs of authenticity, since most of the materials I read are about seeing the signs of fakes. Therefore, counting on the hive mind on CT.[/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