Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Curtisimo, Dec 20, 2016.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I read the article. The coins has been tested with SEM and the patina layer density has been analyzed and proven fake so the coin is fake no doubt as it has been scientifically proven. Here is the scientific article on how SEM can be used to do surface analysis.
100% fake the bubble from the air captured in metal as poured into the pot for melting which indicate it's a cast coin
Athens New Style Tetradrachm 152/1 BC
Obs : Athena Parthenos right in tri-form helmet
33mm 16.92 g Thompson Issue 13
Thompson catalogue: Obs 80 ?? : Rev 79a
Rev : AΘE ethnic
Owl Standing on overturned panathenaic amphora
on which month mark Ζ
XM monogram left, AΦN monogram right
2 magistrates : MOSCHOS PHANIAS
RF symbol : 2 Serpents
All within a surrounding olive wreath
Lots of holes on the obverse. Soft features too.
My diagnosis-2000+ years in sub-optimum conditions plus very worn obverse die cos the reverse is really nice condition.
Athens New Style Tetradrachm 153/2 BC
Obs : Athena Parthenos right in tri-form helmet
34.2mm 16.80 g Thompson issue 12
Thompson catalogue : Obs 66 : Rev NEW
Rev : ΑΘΕ ethnic
Owl standing on overturned panathenaic amphora
on which month letter A
2 magistrates monograms in both fields
LF symbol : Cicada
All within a surrounding olive wreath
Lots of holes and rough surfaces. Damage from welded coin being removed from hoard after 2000+ years. Nice sharp dies.
I have some of the other coins from this hoard.
Not I. If you wanted to get help you would have shown us the obverse (Domitian, I assume) and used better word choice than 'pontificate'. There is enough bad information in this thread already; we need no more 'games'.
It's Vespasian, I was looking for input. Apologies if my choice of words offended you.
I think most ignore this thread since it turned into a hostile discussion between two members. You can start a new thread of you want and probably get some answers.
I have seen these ‘bubbles’ before on a couple of ex jewellery coins, probably due to excessive heating. Are there indications of mounting?
I can't see any evidence of mounting. It has a dark patina (darker than these photos captured) with evidence of cleaning attempts.
I'm new here and haven't figured out if the passion comes from interest in coins or their internet persona. Seems to be a consistent issue in many threads.
@IMP Shogun, don't worry, this is overall a very friendly forum with a lot of knowledge amassed. You just happened to post this in a thread that is probably ignored by most - a thread that started nicely but turned sour when two ego's clashed.
Don't let it turn you off: welcome to cointalk
Your Vespasian is nice and your photographs are better than most. Looking forward to see the rest of your collection. If you want more answers, I suggest posting a thread (where you introduce yourself). As mentioned, this thread is probably ignored by most.
I am sorry for seeming unfriendly but this list has regular visits by people who have interest in fooling with people and making them look bad. Your post set off two red flags with the lack of mention of Vespasian and 'pontificate'. If you really want a worthwhile opinion on the coin, you could show it to a top end expert like the ones who work for NGC or Harlan Berk (for example) but the expenses of doing that would exceed the value of the coin. You could show it to a dozen dealers of lesser abilities and get several different opinions of varying degrees of value. If the coin were mine, I would not saw it in half but prefer to live in ignorance. We each will have our opinions and mine tend to accept it as a real coin that has suffered greatly. I do not know if The Pope will expertise coins but, if he does, we need to remember that he only claims infallibility in matters of 'religion and morals'. People who consider themselves infallible in matters of numismatics tend not to be even close.
I would love to see what William Campbell would have said on the matter. I love his book (1933) that is now free online and demonstrates what can be learned from sawing coins in half.
No worries at all I clearly could have worded my comment differently. It's condition isn't great but I bought the coin for the portrait and I like the crazy toning. I like to think the Flavians learning how to debase played a part as the copper % started moving higher - at least that's the story I'm going with.
I read nearly your entire site before my first post here and found it very helpful, and I'll check out that book. Thanks.
If it's internal corrosion it's likely that the coin is a fourree, an ancient counterfeit. The blisters may have been caused by the corrosion of base metals in the coin core.
If you had the weight of the coin it would help. But either way I do not think it's a modern fake.
Trajan, AD 98-117. AR Denarius (18mm, 2.91g, 7h). Rome mint, struck AD 115-116. Obv: IMP CAES NER TRAIANO OPTIMO AVG GER DAC; Laureate, draped bust of Trajan right. Rev: P M TR P COS VI P P SPQR; Mars advancing right, holding spear and trophy. Ref: BMCRE 536; RIC 337; RSC 270.
I don't think I have, the valuable ones are still in storage in a undisclosed unit in TN. I'll take a photo of some of the Greek bronzes I'm playing with at the moment. You'll need to fill in all the info you guys post under the image.
ernstk, posted: "Who said I am suspicious about authenticity? Actually if you read this thread, you will see Insider was the one who said the authentic sasanian coin was fake and I was the one who said it was real. I have no clue where you get your judgements from but they are not at all factual. Yes many collectors including me (and I don't know who Arsh is you talking about) are suspicious of some coins. I have a close circle of authenticator friends who are top notch (?) on some very convincing fakes that can fool 90% of members here [this sounds like a challenge to ALL the CT ancient forum members] so I know what is real and fake when I consult those guys."
This will be my last reply to you until you post an authentication quiz for CT with either a genuine coin or one you think is a counterfeit. Chiefly because you insist on miss-quoting my comments AFTER BEING CORRECTED both by me and another member. It is unfortunate that you are having a difficult time with our language as you have asked some wonderful questions.
ernstk, continued: Again you provide a yes/no answer. I would accept your hesitant answer [there was NOTHING hesitant about my answer.As I wrote, the part of the coin shows characteristics that can be interpreted in either way. The professional authenticators interpreted them one way and a self-proclaimed certifiable "Ex-Pert" interpreted them another] for a very high end convincing coin but for this cheap coin it is obvious it is fake! What do you mean by certain coin in certain era has these void/cracks on surface?? [Your extremely limited experience with the characteristics found on genuine World coins causes me great concern about your alleged authentication skills and those of your circle of "perts."] Please show some genuine example with such features. [You may try examining images of 17 -18 Century coins from Europe as a start as I don't intend to deal with you or your ilk anymore. In my country, we have a saying about tossing pearls …]
A specific gravity would probably prove your coin is genuine. Make sure there are no bubbles trapped in the edge cracks
When you cant be sure from obvious images what is fake and what is real, There is no point to prove or argue with you. Think whatever you want it doesn't change reality. But keep in mind I am getting paid by lots of sasanian collectors for authenticity matters as I am one of best known experts in Sasanian coinage. I have authored a book in sasanian coinage and my opinion on them is surely more accepted by the serious sasanian collectors than yours.
ernstk, posted: "When you cant be sure from obvious images what is fake and what is real, There is no point to prove or argue with you. Think whatever you want it doesn't change reality. But keep in mind I am getting paid by lots of sasanian collectors for authenticity matters as I am one of best known experts in Sasanian coinage. I have authored a book in sasanian coinage and my opinion on them is surely more accepted by the serious sasanian collectors than yours."
Great, You are the kind of poster we all welcome to a coin form. I am not an expert in that series and I don't claim to be! Nevertheless, I suggest you get a book on the English language. I never said the posted coin was a counterfeit.
PROOF: "Insider, post: 4828093, member: 24314"]I don't have an opinion on this one. Authentication of any reasonably good fake requires magnification. One thing to always check on a coin suspected to be a sast c/f is the weight and specific gravity (tricky with all the fissures on ancients). Very often, besides an edge seem, their will be evidence of filing to get the weight "right."
Unfortunately, as I posted before, the good fakes are die struck - usually with a much better style, surface, and appearance than a genuine specimen."
To which you replied: ernstk, replied: "What is your evidence that this is cast? This coin is absolutely genuine. Patina is right style is consistent. It is harshly cleaned and has evidence of horn silver there is nothing wrong in this coin to condemn it as forgery."
DonnaML, posted: "...Although I must say I don't know how anyone could reasonably interpret your response as a "condemn[ation]" of the coin as a forgery, given your express statement that you "don't have an opinion on this one!"
BTW, Earnest, that also explains why you think a normal European coin in an ANACS slab is a counterfeit. That coin is very, very far out of your field of expertise! Perhaps you should follow my example and only post on something you actually know about.
PS I think there may be a few of us who would like to check out your book that is titled: _________________________________________________.
Separate names with a comma.