UH-OH, looks like a fake?

Yes, I'm May 21st. I missed the identical April 29th listing, I'll bet it was returned!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The iNumis coin on acsearch, which is definitely not a linked cast but shares dies with yours and the Leu coin, has some dots that could be mistaken for casting pearls. I'm very uncertain, but if I were forced to bet, I would say your coin is genuine and the apparent casting pearls are just impurities in the metal.

 

It can not be impurities of metal!

This areas where the casting pimples are have been smoothed on the host.
This casting pimples on the fake have such a high hight that that they could not been hidden under the authentic smoothed patina of the authentic host.
Since when does stripping coins add material that exactly look like casting pearls?
I have never seen impurities that looked like casting pimples.

The authentic Leu host and the cast fake, share the same flan shape, centering, wear and corrosion (M on the obverse), it is impossible that two ancient coins
from same dies have so much in common.

How does the edge look like?

The details are much softer on cast fake for example dots of dotted border + casting pimples and casting defect (red arrow on picture).

 

Inumis piece has still patina so there the dots which do not look like casting pimples can be explained with the patina. Patina is not necessarily everywhere uniform thick (patina can grow different depending on environment) and there can be impurities (dirt) in patina. There can be die flaws (die damaged, some metal broke out), which can look pretty round and the roughness can be removed with time due to die erosion from metal flow. So at the inumis piece it can be explained due to die flaw under patina or with patina. The cast fake is stripped so it can not be explained with patina and die flaw is not possible because die flaws can be round but surface does not look like melted metal. Real casting pimples are round and are melted metal and this is how they look like! The planchets of ancient coins were casted so the metal of planchet has at the beginning a surface like cast fakes but now comes the point, the pressure from striking will result in metal flow which will give the surface a luster and so the surface of the minted coin is pretty much different from the surface the planchet had used to mint the coin. If they would have been impurities on the surface of the coin, they should have been affected to the metal flow of striking and they should not look like melted metal anymore. Of course impurites can be in the alloy of the planchet ( the alloy is not everywhere completely homogenous) but since when do they look exactly the same as casting pimples? There is an identical scratch on throat on obverse on mother and cast fake (yellow arrow) it must be a cast fake.

 

@Pravda: Thanks for the comments. You might make me change my bet, but I still don't think we can be certain from the photos.

Not the same flan shape or corrosion (even on the M: there are parts of the M visible on the alleged cast that aren't on the alleged host), and the scratch on the neck isn't the same either... at least it doesn't appear to be in the photo. Of course chrsmat will be able to tell much better than we can.

I have seen this, where it sure looked like subsequent corrosion exposed impurities that resisted the corrosion; this was confirmed by the dealer. Perhaps they look like melted metal because they're remainders from the flan casting process? (Or possibly they were in fact fakes!)

 

Thanks for your comments everyone, I appreciate it.

I originally said there wasn't s seam on the edge, but I think there is one. Very hard to get a pic of it, but here is my best shot.