I remember when these came out, they were thought to be real, then later all fake. Now it seems the consensus is some are real, but modern copies also exist. I don't draw attention to active listings unless I think it will save someone the expense of buying a fake coin. The one being listed certainly does look like the Bulgarian copies with a poor patina applied. I have never seen one of these in person, but here is the coin. Listed as 22.5mm 7.47g The seller even references the study made on this type which shows the one he is selling to be very close the the known fakes. Below is an example of the type believed to be authentic (but tooled?) per the authors of the paper.
This is an embarrassment. You really flatter the [likely] Eastern European newbie who's cranking out these ersatz knockoffs by reposting it here. I'm still intrigued by Beast's coin after all these years but can't bring myself to accept it beyond a nod that it seems to be an ancient creation (I was a bidder on it after all). However, none of the me-too pieces that have shown up since have done one bit to legitimize it. It remains... an oddity. For now no more, no less. Rasiel
To be clear I reposted because I believe it is a fake and want to make new collectors aware of it. That is the question, if the coin in the article is an official issue it would be very rare. The article is a good read btw.
It is a good read. Thanks for linking to it. But after reading it, I'm more confused about the authenticity of Beast's coin than before. Die matched to a coin with a reverse from a different mint? Makes no sense.
Same mint different workshop is what I got out of it. Seems unlikely, but they did mention the second coin may have had a recarved workshop.
Given the uniqueness of Beast's coin, I'd be comfortable saying it is a fake. There's just simply nothing else remotely like it, which is usually a red flag. Short of digging another in an undisturbed layer by archaeologists, you'll not convince me otherwise. And yes, the metal may be old, but forgers sometimes recycle ancient metal for their forgeries. It is a well known practice.
I'm not familiar enough with the Akragas type to know the deception... Care to enlighten those of us not in the know?
Read this old thread, but make sure to click the link at the beginning. It has details and links to other discussions. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fake-akragas-topic-again.285093/
Now as when it was a fresh topic, I prefer to not take a side on this one. Beast is a friend and respected by me. I continue to hope for another (or a pot full( of these to turn up in a dig without question (rather like the Domitianus II coin). 99% of the expert opinions on the subject are given by persons of no particular expertise and the 1% can be wrong. I trust that Beast will never sell the coin so we don't need to worry about that. The fakes copying the coin range from not too terribly bad to hilarious. I doubt we will every know but can always hope.
That is correct. I should have said "die matched to a coin with a reverse style seemingly from a different mint."
I just read a 30+ page study on Beast's coin. The authors concluded it is real, though readily admit it could be a modern forgery struck on an old flan, though they conclude it's unlikely someone would bother with repatinating the coin so well if they just meant to make a quick buck online. Not sure how much I agree with that finding. My concern is that the coin and the 2012 coin both appeared on the internet and there is no history or provenance whatsoever. They just pop up from nowhere. So while I see how the experts could determine the coin is real, abcent a well documented find of another there will always be some doubt be in my mind whether it isn't a modern die struck on an ancient flan and expertly patinated.
The authors of the study point out some tooling on the coin, but they prove pretty convincingly that no metal was added. Still, some of those VLPPs have really high relief, so I'm not yet ready to eliminate the possibility that the cap was tooled. If it was tooled, there is the possibility that a die match of the original coin might turn up some day, showing the exact same face but with a different helmet.
Since it was likely to have originated from the Balkans a documented find of another specimen is unlikely but could happen and may have already. Its difficult to say as archaeologists have always ignored coins in all contexts other than to help date a site. Its entirely possible many others exist in some damp basement somewhere, cataloged as 'coin, Roman'. I would not be surprised if some new technology were applied to this, perhaps some sort of spectroscopy or other technology that could reveal what might be under patina, whether or not tooling exists, etc.
I'm certainly no expert, but when I see a coin like that... I can't but remember another one, that I bought a few years back, by its general aspect, brightness and patina... ....that fooled me and a few others, including the reputable dealer who sold it to me (it wouldn't fool me today) because they where unknown at that time. Here's the discussion about it and some others in the same manner : http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=42890.0 Q
