There has been some discussion of why this is an obvious fake: Looking in SNG Copenhagen, it looks almost exactly like SNG Cop 41. The claws are open a little more, but SNG COP 43 has open claws exactly the same amount with some other devices below the crab. This coin does not have casting bubbles, the letters and devices look crisp, the style is exactly right, and it matches a known coin in an old time collection. The metal looks good, the edges look good. Looking in ACSEARCH: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1581118 A very close if not exact match. Forgery network has this modern struck fake, but it is not a match. Notice the crab in this one has a "face" that is lacking in this crab. Forgery network notes that the obverse die is too long and flat. Forgery network also lists this one, which was withdrawn by CNG as a high end fake (go CNG!). This is also not a match for the OP coin. Forums fake reports yields the crab with the face. You can look yourself here: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/search.php The ebay seller is not on Warren Esty's notorious fake seller list: http://augustusmath.hypermart.net/fakesellers.html So why is the OP coin an obvious fake? I am just trying learn and help the community here and not be confrontational. John
Notice that I am not disputing that it is a fake. What I want to know is WHY is it a fake, and WHY is it obviously a fake. I spent an hour trying to PROVE to myself it was a fake without success. I am obviously missing something in my technique. John
I'll take a stab at it. First, the flan. It is virtually perfectly round-- no signs of sprues or irregularities seen on most other genuine Akragas tetradrachms. Second, the fabric. While I don't see any casting bubbles or pits, it has a very polished appearance, like a polished cast. Third, the style. The posture and details of the eagle are subtly different from any others I recall seeing. The feathers are rendered differently. At a glance I assumed this coin was fake. Looking at the links you provided and other resources doesn't do anything to dispel that initial feeling. The usual disclaimer: I am in no way an expert.
Also, the reverse dies seem to typically be smaller on genuine examples, leaving a "rim" or somewhat incuse appearance to the entire reverse design. The coin in question does not show this.
Thanks TIF, those are some good observations. Is being perfectly round and/or lacking sprues or any sign of sprues a definitive sign of a fake? Hmmm. Look at this ACSEARCH result from an old collection which is pretty round and sprue free: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3059253 The eagle on the OP coin is leaning his head back in an odd way. Are there any real ones like that? How about this one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1780452 Of course any of the ACSEARCH examples I am showing can be fakes as well. John
That's a good point about acsearch. There are some fakes in there, occasionally noted in the comments but not always-- and I can't just take as a given someone's comment that a particular coin is fake. It's a dilemma. Speaking of acsearch, here's a coin whose obverse overlays virtually perfectly with the OP coin. The details of the OP coin appear strengthened. Perhaps this coin, or a better version, was used as a mold (or for a transfer die) and the mold was touched up? Maybe this acsearch coin is fake as well? Maybe neither are fake? After looking through bunches of these coins while pondering my replies, I starting thinking all of them look fake https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1179004
The letters seem to be less sharp than the authentic example - look at the 'K' for instance. Also note the layered effect the feathers have on the Nomos example versus the more flat and 2d appearance of the feathers on the fake. Given the photos it's hard for me to say one way or the other but I would not be surprised if this coin was pressed from transfer dies that had some work done to them rather than this being a cast replica, though given the lighting used for this picture it is difficult to accurately judge the surfaces. For me, this particular coin falls into the category of "authenticity not verifiable" to use a description I've seen used by NGC. I don't know enough about the type to say for certain that it's a replica, but I don't feel good about the coin either.
I agree with TIF's points as to the fabric of the coin, but I would also mention context. If I'm not mistaken, was that not a coin recently offered on eBay at a low starting bid from an unknown seller? It's a suspicious place to find an authentic coin potentially worth many thousands of dollars. Or am I confusing it with another coin?
I think John Anthony has nailed it. I agree with people's observations that the OP coin is a little odd. But not odd enough to fall outside the realm of it being a real coin when you see how much variation in dies there is. What makes the OP coin an obvious fake is that it is being sold really cheap using a too good to be true back story by a seller who does not usually sell ancient coins. I would not have bought the OP coin for two reasons: (1) unknown seller with no lifetime guarantee of authenticity (no guarantee at all actually) (2) price too good to be true. Really reason number (1) is enough to walk away. If the seller did any homework at all, even just on ebay, they would see this is a $4000 coin, if real. Why not send it to CNG or at least offer it for a $3500 starting price? The lesson to me here is if you want to buy $$$$ ancient coins make sure to buy them from well known sellers with lifetime authenticity guarantees who have a multi-year reputation in the real world outside of an ebay screen name. John
TIF, this one you found sure looks like a cast, with the soft details and the pits all over. It does have sprues. Maybe it is just corroded? In the end authenticity of ancients is an opinion. The best evidence seems to be exact matches with coins from collections 100s of years old. Even those collections had fakes though, that got exposed over time. To protect yourself you really need to do a lot of legwork and it helps to have a lot of references. John
From what I gather, it is often (usually?) possible to determine authenticity if the person is very experienced with such matters and examines the coin under a good bit of magnification. From photos, in the absence of certain findings, it is just a guess, although perhaps an educated guess (not referring to my own guess )
In the vein of education and not confrontation: IMHO, this coin is not an exact match and is SO FAR AWAY from even a close match that you need to sharpen your eye for detail. Best way to do this is to make a printout of both coins and (one side at a time) compare each tiny part of the design. This will sharpen your "eye." Post#3 virtually covers it all. Experience is also a big plus. Professional authenticators have a phrase for coins as this that set off their "gut" reaction: "Too good to-be-true." That hit me the minute I saw the piece and @TIF put it into words.
Actually, ALL AUTHENTICATION IS A MATTER OF OPINION. Fortunately, over time, with study, comparison coins locked away in old collections, and a stereo microscope...some opinions are better than others. Those folks build a reputation for themselves. Unfortunately, through much of history, ancients have been examined mostly using the naked eye or a low power hand lens. Thus, many state-of-the art forgeries have passed into the market. Fortunately, counterfeits are all done in the same ways (improving over time). Thus, they usually exhibit the same "tell-tale" defects as seen under a stereo microscope. @TIF Sorry, the coin in Post#5 is not close either.
Sadly, I'm usually a bit suspect and gun-shy of shiny, perfect lookin' ancient coins Ummm, I find it a bit easier when they look like this ... grungy and punched-out!! ... yup, the "lived-in" look is actually a plus for me (I don't have very much coin-cash)
Yesterday while shopping at the coin show, a dealer had two examples of Steve's coin. Both were corroded. Neither showed much of the undertype and only enough of the countermark that we could identify the coin. The better one was marked $80 and the lesser one $60. Steve's example is one of the finest of the type I have seen. The coins were wel used when the countermarks were applied and strikes varied in quality. They circulated some more and were lost in volcanic soil. I consider it something of a miracle they exist but now the best we can do is call them "grungy and punched-out!!"??? Those of you new to ancients might have trouble with coins as ugly as Steve's but some of us love our coins for what they are not how we wish they might have been. I have some beautiful coins, too, but I try not to let them bully their homely sisters.
I really disagree with this. Coins are what they are and are not what they are not. The problem is that we, expert or amateur, are what we are not what we wish we could be. Some opinions are 99.9% valid; some of us would do better to flip a coin and go with the side that fell down rather than up.
Thanks Doug => $100 hammer for that grungy punched-out beauty (yah, I was very happy to pay that amount!!) If I recall, I think my max-bid was $300?! ... so yah, I remember that we both thought that I scored a great coin (I love it => thanks for yours and TIF's coin opinions) => this place rocks!!
Yep, that is EXACTLY what I said (no disagreement from me with your post) using different words. Coin authentication is a process based on opinion. The qualifications of the person giving the opinion will give the most accurate result. Nevertheless, even they can be wrong on occasion. I learned that the paid staff at ANACS in Washington, DC "cleared-the-decks" of over half their outside consultants after determining their "opinions" were shall we say less than accurate. . I also agree that as long as "coins are what they are" a fake is GENUINE if ALL agree and a GENUINE is fake if ALL agree. The coin is still what it is either fake or genuine until the OPINIONS are correct one way or the other.
Here isan example of a fake report I added to Forvm. This came from the IAPN Bulletin Of Counterfeits (BOC) Vol 13, No. 1 in 1988 and was used with permission of IAPN. I show it to illustrate how good some fakes are. It comes with the explanation as to why the experts deemed this example fake. I am not knowledgable enough on the series to have any educated comment whatsoever. Fig 1 is the false coin - 17.27g Fig 2 is genuine - ex "Kunstfreund" Struck from modern dies. The obverse die is too large and flat. Generally, the letters in the original are confidently, but lightly made; in the counterfeit die they are recut and have a thicker, less graceful, more regular appearance. Note the letter N; it is recut with the vertical strokes nearly the same length in the counterfeit; on the original the left stroke id only half as long as the right one. The head and neck of the bird have been touched up in the new die and have become slimmer in the process. The reverse incuse is deeper than on any of the published speciments of this die. The die break on the edge of the incuse below the crab which occurs on all these specimens has been tooled off in the counterfeit die.
