Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cmezner, post: 8589730, member: 87809&quot;]it&#039;s what I said in the OP; seller on EBay sold hundreds of these....</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Amentia also explains why the Chersonesos hemidrachms are fake; I certainly can translate it, but if you click on <a href="https://www.numismatikforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=49&amp;t=53721&amp;start=870#p570737" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.numismatikforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=49&amp;t=53721&amp;start=870#p570737" rel="nofollow">viewtopic.php?f=49&amp;t=53721&amp;start=870#p570737</a>&nbsp; the pictures speak for themselves...</p><p><br /></p><p>A link is also provided where you can find and I quote: &quot;Questionable Cherronesos hemidrachm (2.3g), copy of McClean 4076-4077, with reverse of wreath and pellet: <a href="https://rg.ancients.info/lion/cherronesos.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://rg.ancients.info/lion/cherronesos.html" rel="nofollow">https://rg.ancients.info/lion/cherronesos.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p>This is a probably modern forgery, sold as an authentic coin by a volume eBay seller who didn&#039;t respond to an email questioning it. Its being modern rests on four arguments:</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Exaggeratedly long claw. The lion has a paw with an exaggerated claw. I&#039;ve only seen one specimen documented in the literature with an exaggeratedly long claw, McClean 4125, though the symbols on the reverse are different than on this piece. Most Cherronesos lion hemidrachms have regular paws or paws off the flan. The Lipanoff Studio fake illustrated above has an exaggerated claw.</p><p><br /></p><p>2. Exaggeratedly long neck. None of the 126 Cherronesos hemidrachms of all varieties illustrated in McClean, SNG Cop., Weber, SNG Lockett, and SNG Berry feature a lion with a neck like this. The only other piece I&#039;ve seen with a neck like this is the Lipanoff Studio forgery illustrated above.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. Unusual design of wreath. Specimens having the reverse of this coin, with a wreath and pellet, can be attributed among other ways as McClean 4076-4077, SNG Cop. 843, and BMC Thrace pg. 183, 14. BMC doesn&#039;t illustrate this variety, but McClean and SNG Cop. do. Neither the McClean nor the SNG Cop. specimen of this variety features a wreath like the wreath on this coin, which has a clearly demarcated circle separating the outer leaves from the inner leaves. Further, none of the three specimens of this variety that Barry Murphy illustrates at his site on these coins exhibits a wreath like this either.</p><p><br /></p><p>4. Unusually thin flan. The flan on this coin looks unusually thin. These issues without letters, like this coin, are earlier than those with letters and are usually on dumpier flans. This coin has a wider, thinner flan characteristic of latter varieties.</p><p><br /></p><p>This piece appears originally engraved, pressed, artificially worn, and artificially toned. It appears to be a more sophisticated deception than the fairly crude Lipanoff forgery illustrated above, though it may well be a later work by the same copyist, who chose an unusual and interesting obverse variety, with an exaggeratedly long claw, as his model while again failing to accurately replicate other key design and fabric characteristics of this coin type.&quot;[/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