Please forgive the cross posting.

It was a long time in coming, but I finally have got my fake uncleaned coins
site back up and running.


http://www.fakeuncleanedcoins.com


It's a pretty comprehensive collection of photos of the mounds of fakes salted
into uncleaned coin lots several years back.  Every now and then some keep
showing up on eBay.  It is also solid proof that there is no coin, no matter how
small or cheap, that is immune from counterfeiting.


Bob B.

I have posted a link to the die twin of this fake Galba below.  There are
some made from that cast that are more worn, and some less worn at the same
link.  I have seen this particular fake sell at least 30 different times on ebay
by different sellers; mostly Bulgarian and United Kingdom dealers.  Regards,
Mike Buras (Artifact Man Ancient Coins)
 
http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?mode=6Q/zOXMHeZ0=&id=sMwqSP4q6LI=





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is a very difficult one.  There is nothing wrong with the style
of either the obverse or reverse, so it cannot be condemned on that
basis.  So that leaves two significant possibilities.

1) It is genuine.

2) It is a fake with struck from dies manufactured directly from a
genuine coins or it is a casting from a mold taken from a genuine coin.

So lets first look at the weight.  There are about 20 denarii of this
issue in coinarchives, which is enough to get a good base line for
where these should be.  Having just looking at the, I find that the
average is somewhere right around 3.3 grams, with the lightest intact
one about 3.06 grams, and the heaviest at 3.59 grams, but very few
are over 3.5 grams.  The coin being offered is listed at 3.6 grams,
although we have no way of knowing just how accurate his scales
are.  But it is certainly heavier than usual for this series, but not
an impossible weight.  Reason to be mildly suspect, but not reason to
condemn it.

So now I have to go on general impressions.  And what is really
bothering me is that edges of the coin appear to be very smooth and
rounded.  Genuine coins generally do not look that way, and I feel
that smooth rounded look would be much more consistent with a casting
with edges worked to hide any casting signs.

So while I can see no way to condemn the coin based on these image
alone, this is not a coin I would be prepared to bid on based on the
images.   But if they made a mold and cast fakes from it, it is very
likely there are more out there somewhere that will match it
exactly.  Finding such a match would be what is needed to condemn it
from images, and unless that is found it would have to remain in limbo.

Robert Kokotailo






At 08:11 PM 6/29/2009, joeblazick wrote:
>  A member of the UAC was whinning the we have not discussed this
> auction but no one has mentioned it online to be discussed.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/10a-GALBA-SILVER-DENARIUS-69-AD_W0QQitemZ160343639361QQcmdZ\
ViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item255539c541&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkpar\
ms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1205%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%\
3A50
>
>
>What do we say?I am suspect just because it was a private auction.
>

Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A member of the UAC was whinning the we have not discussed this auction but no
one has mentioned it online to be discussed.

http://cgi.ebay.com/10a-GALBA-SILVER-DENARIUS-69-AD_W0QQitemZ160343639361QQcmdZV\
iewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item255539c541&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparm\
s=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1205%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3\
A50


What do we say?I am suspect just because it was a private auction.

ForgeryNetwork.com has now passed the milestone of 10,000 uploaded counterfeit
images to the online database. This is the largest counterfeit coin resource (by
far) worldwide, making it an essential tool for authenticating coins.

This means, if you are unknowingly looking to purchase a fake there is a good
chance its on this database. Thus we strongly recommend you use this resource
before purchasing any coins online (or otherwise).  Many of the coins sold
online are difficult to authenticate from images alone and you may well find
matches on the database.

With credit to the IAPN we also include 3000 published fakes from IBSCC Bulletin
of Counterfeits (BOC).  The remainder are largely approved fakes that have
recognised as fakes by the scientific  method of twinning and die matching, as
well as many sold as counterfeit that we have listed.

The database now also has 3000 modern coins (1500 AD onwards) including 900
United States forgeries.


Please, remember this is a free service and we want to continue to keep this
free in the interest of our hobby, avoiding compulsory subscriptions.  We
believe, keeping this information in the public domain is in the interest of the
entire numismatic hobby.  We have many ongoing costs and we are in the process
of planning a substantial upgrade to the site.  This upgrade will not only
simplify the the system, but will also incorporate

other resources to make this a central resource for all counterfeit information
and refine what we already have.  Thus we ask for donations to help make this
possible.  We recommend $20 for each user, but any amount will be gratefully
accepted to help expand this resource.  With your help we can do much, much
more.

If you are in the coin business we believe we can offer you promotional tools
through this site that will give your company more exposure to genuine coin
buyers, while helping build this valuable resource.  Please contact us for
further information, we are sure you will find what we offer very reasonable and
users will recognise your willingness assist in subduing the trade in
counterfeits.

If you have or discover any forgeries not on the database, please register and
upload these or contact us.

We would like to thank those who have contributed, loading images, making
donations and sponsoring this site.

Mark Naber
administrator@...
http://www.forgerynetwork.com

At 04:25 PM 3/28/2009, joeblazick wrote:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACFDL/photos/album/2039626766/pic/list;jsessionid\
=F6A14FACA542C82493859ADCCF1BCBDC.
>
>Does this coin have any signs that it is fake?


I note that, as with most silique, it has a significant flan
crack.  In this case it starts on the obverse at roughly 6 o'clock
and goes about 40% of the way across the coin, directly towards the
centre.  I can see evidence of it on the other side as well.

If this coin were a genuine die struck coin, that crack has to go all
the way through the coin.  If the coin is a casting, the crack as we
see it on the image will only be captured on the casting as a surface
feature, but will not actually extend into and through the core of the coin.

It would help if you can check on that feature and let us know.  You
can probably tell visually, but if there is doubt, put a drop of
acetone on the crack and see if it draws through to the other side
along length of the crack.

If the crack does not go through the coin of the core, you can assume
the coin if a cast fake.  If the crack does go through to the core,
that only proves the coin is not a casting, but does not prove it is
genuine (some fakes are die struck), so further investigation is
needed to prove it's status.

Robert Kokotailo



Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Joe,
	 To me, it does not look real. The "strike" is too weak, and
it does not look much like Julian, even in his beardless phase.  I
have spent hours in British museums looking at their siliqua trays
and taken notes on hundreds of them, admittedly mostly English finds.
I do not claim certainty, but this one does not seem right.
	 -- Warren

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACFDL/photos/album/2039626766/pic/list;jsessionid=\
F6A14FACA542C82493859ADCCF1BCBDC.

Does this coin have any signs that it is fake?

No it is not my store Mike but another dealer on Ebay.Having worked in the
costume jewelry idustry for 4 years I was involved with the fake antiquing of
pieces and they sure looked similar to that on the coin.
--- On Sun, 8/24/08, Michael Moriarty <michael@...> wrote:

From: Michael Moriarty <michael@...>
Subject: RE: [ACFDL] Look at this coin
To: "'joeblazick'" <joeblazick@...>
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2008, 11:25 AM








Hello Joe,
I think this coin is ok.  I have had other coins of various era with the similar
mottled patina in fact I just cleaned one it looked like the Trajan you found on
ebay. This is your ebay store isn˘t it?
Regards,
Michael Moriarty
www.topcoins.com
Czech Republic
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ACFDL@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
joeblazick
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2008 2:42 AM
To: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ACFDL] Look at this coin
 



I found this coin a bit funny looking for the patina alone.Usually
when the patina is dark and broken ,it has been artificially applied
and the coins possible fake .What say others?

http://cgi.ebay. com/Rome- Trajan-denarius- Virtus-VF- 114-
117_W0QQitemZ160275 285989QQihZ006QQ categoryZ4734QQs sPageNameZWDVWQQ rdZ1
QQcmdZViewItem





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:21 PM 8/24/2008, Derell Licht wrote:
>Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFDThis case brings up
>something I've been uncertain about regarding ebay...
>The seller of this coin, caesars_ghost, has 12637 lifetime ratings,
>100% positive.  I sort of suspect that if he was in the habit of
>pushing fake coins (disregarding the very real possibility of
>occasional ignorance on a coin here or there), that people would
>flag him now and then in his ratings.  So this type of situation
>tends to make me feel a little more confidence in the seller, that
>at least he's probably non deliberately, regularly pushing fake goods.
>
>OTOH, I with my 85 rating am hardly a master of the intricacies of
>ebay!!  So, what do others here think of this view??  Am I simply
>ignorant?  Or is this a reasonable reasoning?

Please note that what I am about to say is not directed at the ebay
seller caesars_ghost, but rather the ebay system in general.  I have
no reason to believe caesars_ghost is not a fully honest seller.

There were at least a couple of major flaws in the Ebay system, that
made the feedback system basically meaning less until very recently.

1) Sellers could leave negative feedback for buyers, and could wait
until after the buyer had left them feedback before doing so.  This
meant that sellers could blackmail buyers into not leaving them a
negative, for fear of a retaliatory negative.  Pretty much all of the
major sellers of fakes used this approach, and so some of them were
able to keep their record completely clean in spite of selling many fakes.

Ebay has now fixed this problem, by making it impossible for sellers
to leave retaliatory feedback, and now an unhappy buyers can leave
negative feedback without fear.  This happened recently enough that
no all ebayers understand this has been fixed, and it will take a
little time before the sellers of fakes gain enough negatives to have
an impact.  But in another year or two this will have a significant
effect on cleaning up the feedback system.

2) Most knowledgeable buyers who could spot a fake easily, can do so
from images and never bid on the fakes. Since they have not bought
the coin, they cannot leave the seller a negative.   Many buyers who
cannot spot fakes from images, cannot do so with the coins in hand,
and receiving what they assume to be a genuine coin leave the bad
seller a positive.  By the time they figure out it is fake, they
cannot change that positive to a negative, and since they probably
never buy from that seller again they never leave him a negative.  As
a result, lots of sellers of fakes have accumulated few if any
negatives.  This is not something ebay can do anything about.

Unfortunately, some time in the past year ebay changed they way they
calculate feedback, which got rid of the last really good way to use
the feedback system.  Ebay used to show the total number of feedback,
and the total number of distinct buyers, and you could easily
calculate how many feedback the average buyers had left.  This
actually had meaning.

For example, a seller like AAH might have something 15,000 feedback
from 2000 distinct people, which meant the average person had bought
from him 7.5 times.  You only get that kind of ratio of the buyers
are happy and keep coming back.  Another seller might have 2000
feedback from 1800 different people, which meant the average buyer
only bought 1.1 items from him, so he had very few return buyers and
it was likely they were unhappy and did not come back for more.

This was far more meaning full to me than the number of positives or
negatives the seller had.  Unfortunately, ebay's new feedback system
no longer gives the data needed to do these comparisons, which I
believe significantly diminishes the system.

The net result is that the ebay feedback system was relatively
meaningless in the past, and while now improved is still very far
from perfect as an indicator of anything.

We are fortunately that we are only talking about coins here, where
the fast majority of the items posted on ebay are genuine.  In the
antiquities section, if you exclude the every day near worthless
metal detector fragments, I believe what remains runs in excess of
85% either fake or grossly miss-described as something far better
than it really is.  There are sellers there who have never sold a
genuine item, who have hundreds of feedbacks with 100% positive
ratings, because so few of the buyers have the first clue as to how
to the item they bought was not genuine.










Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFDThis case brings up something I've been
uncertain about regarding ebay...
The seller of this coin, caesars_ghost, has 12637 lifetime ratings, 100%
positive.  I sort of suspect that if he was in the habit of pushing fake coins
(disregarding the very real possibility of occasional ignorance on a coin here
or there), that people would flag him now and then in his ratings.  So this type
of situation tends to make me feel a little more confidence in the seller, that
at least he's probably non deliberately, regularly pushing fake goods.

OTOH, I with my 85 rating am hardly a master of the intricacies of ebay!!  So,
what do others here think of this view??  Am I simply ignorant?  Or is this a
reasonable reasoning?

Gorlash (on ebay)
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
   To: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 8:12 PM
   Subject: [ACFDL] Digest Number 608


   Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFD
   Messages In This Digest (3 Messages)
     1a. Look at this coin From: joeblazick
     1b. Re: Look at this coin From: joeblazick
     1c. Re: Look at this coin From: Robert Kokotailo
   View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages
     1a. Look at this coin
     Posted by: "joeblazick" joeblazick@...   joeblazick
     Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:11 am (PDT)
     I found this coin a bit funny looking for the patina alone.Usually
     when the patina is dark and broken ,it has been artificially applied
     and the coins possible fake .What say others?

     http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
     117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
     QQcmdZViewItem


     Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
     Messages in this topic (4)
     1b. Re: Look at this coin
     Posted by: "joeblazick" joeblazick@...   joeblazick
     Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:10 am (PDT)
     http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
     117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
     QQcmdZViewItem

     Try this link to coin I was talking about


     Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
     Messages in this topic (4)
     1c. Re: Look at this coin
     Posted by: "Robert Kokotailo" robert@...   calgarycoins
     Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:11 am (PDT)
     At 11:11 AM 8/24/2008, joeblazick wrote:
     >I found this coin a bit funny looking for the patina alone.Usually
     >when the patina is dark and broken ,it has been artificially applied
     >and the coins possible fake .What say others?
     >
     >http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
     >117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
     >QQcmdZViewItem

     Here is a link that will not wrap :

     http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160275285989

     I would not want to condemn a coin like this based on patination.

     When I look at other coins of this issue, I can find all of the odd
     features this coin has, such as the large thick lettering on the reverse :

     http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/gorny/118/image02148.jpg

     The head of virtus that is too small for it's body :

     http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=157931&AucID=191&Lot=2137

     There is no one thing that I can point to in the style that makes me
     suspect anything.

     What is making the coin look a little odd is that the image gives me
     the impression that both the obverse and reverse are slightly
     convex. If the coin were really like that, I would immediately
     condemn the coin, but I notice that the lettering looks a little
     blurred and so I suspect the coin was shot an f-stop setting that did
     not allow for enough depth of field, and that could cause the image
     to give than impression when the coin is just fine.

     Over all, I can find not reason on the image to make me want to
     condemn the coin, so would assume it is genuine unless proven
     otherwise by means other than just looking at this one image.
     Robert Kokotailo
     Calgary Coin

     WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
     VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
     VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin

     [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


     Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
     Messages in this topic (4) Visit Your Group
   Yahoo! News
   Kevin Sites

   Get coverage of

   world crises.

   Yahoo! Finance
   It's Now Personal

   Guides, news,

   advice & more.

   Yahoo! Groups
   Latest product news

   Join Mod. Central

   stay connected.

   Need to Reply?
   Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily
Digest.
   Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
   Messages | Files | Photos | Database | Polls

   Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
   Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to
Traditional
   Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 11:11 AM 8/24/2008, joeblazick wrote:
>I found this coin a bit funny looking for the patina alone.Usually
>when the patina is dark and broken ,it has been artificially applied
>and the coins possible fake .What say others?
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
>117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
>QQcmdZViewItem



Here is a link that will not wrap :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160275285989

I would not want to condemn a coin like this based on patination.

When I look at other coins of this issue, I can find all of the odd
features this coin has, such as the large thick lettering on the reverse :

http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/gorny/118/image02148.jpg

The head of virtus that is too small for it's body :

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=157931&AucID=191&Lot=2137

There is no one thing that I can point to in the style that makes me
suspect anything.

What is making the coin look a little odd is that the image gives me
the impression that both the obverse and reverse are slightly
convex.  If the coin were really like that, I would immediately
condemn the coin, but I notice that the lettering looks a little
blurred and so I suspect the coin was shot an f-stop setting that did
not allow for enough depth of field, and that could cause the image
to give than impression when the coin is just fine.

Over all, I can find not reason on the image to make me want to
condemn the coin, so would assume it is genuine unless proven
otherwise by means other than just looking at this one image.
Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
QQcmdZViewItem

Try this link to coin I was talking about

I found this coin a bit funny looking for the patina alone.Usually
when the patina is dark and broken ,it has been artificially applied
and the coins possible fake .What say others?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rome-Trajan-denarius-Virtus-VF-114-
117_W0QQitemZ160275285989QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4734QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1
QQcmdZViewItem

The information contained in this message is legally privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination distribution or copy of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and either return the original message at the address above or
confirm its immediate destruction. Thank you.


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 647 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 02:03 AM 3/8/2008, Tom Buggey wrote:
>Hello,
>I recently bought the following coin in a mail bid sale. The weight
>is very low - 11.97 gms.
>No rim filing marks that I can detect. Would appreciate opinions.
>http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/images/antiochu1.jpg
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tom


I just got back from the Montreal coins show (where we were buried in
snow all weekend) and notice your posting.

11.97 grams is an impossible weight for this type, which averages
16.6 to 17.1 grams, as with this very typical example of the same type :

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=163718&AucID=201&Lot=234

On that alone, is a safe to condemn the coin as a forgery, but the
question is really what type of forgery is it.  To really determine
that would request a carefull physically examination of the coin, and
cannot be done from just images, but I can make a couple of observations.

First, your image appears to show a coin with a soft, muted
appearance.  Secondly, there appear to be a number of very small
bumps and/or dimples scattered around the surfaces.  Both of these
suggest this coin is probably a casting.

I feel it is fairly safe to assume this coin is probably a casting,
although they could also suggest an electrotype.

Most castings with fairly smooth surfaces like this, are lost wax
castings, but the problem with this is that a lost wax casting taken
directly from an original coin and of the same alloy as the original,
will be about 18% lower weight than the original.  You coin, at 11.97
grams, is about 30.5% too low of weight.   Thus a lost wax casting
directly from an original and in the same alloy as an original is
un-likely.  You could end up at this weight if it is not silver, but
rather cast from a baser metal of lower density.

You could also end up at this weight if it were a second generation
fake, if the fake it was cast from was in the 14.6 gram range.  This
is a possibility because there are some fake Selukid tetradrachms
from Lebanon which should be in the 17 gram range, but which were
incorrectly struck to the 14.5 gram standard that should only be seen
on Phoenician mint types.  While I have not seen one of those for
this type, they might exist.

But the coin could also have been cast by a few other casting
techniques that could account for this weight, and electrotypes can
be made to nearly any weight, and a careful examination is needed to
either confirm or refute those possibilities.

Robert Kokotailo
Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,
I recently bought the following coin in a mail bid sale. The weight is very low
- 11.97 gms.
No rim filing marks that I can detect. Would appreciate opinions.
http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/images/antiochu1.jpg

Thanks,

Tom

The Medici coin is in Florence today, so it is unquestionably different from
Paul Anderson's specimen.

I wonder whether the Florence coin is the original of the casts, however, or
just a cast itself.

From Paul's reproduction of Banti's photo of the Florence coin, it does not
seem to have the sharpness and patination that could convince me that it is
a struck original.

Moreover, another sharp specimen of the same cast appeared in Jacques
Schulman 258, June 1974, lot 1796, but was withdrawn as a cast, according to
a note in our photofile by Luke Scholing, Schulman's cataloguer of ancient
coins at the time of the sale.

That coin came from the Apostolo Zeno Collection, Dorotheum 1955, lot 1300.
So it was apparently in existence by 1750, when Zeno died.  Excellent casts
from this time and earlier are not uncommon; some of them even lie
unrecognized in famous public collections or have been sold in important
auction catalogues.  I found at least a dozen series of old casts of
contorniates when I compiled the die catalogue for A. Alföldi's 1976
contorniate corpus.

So it is perfectly possible that the Florence coin too is a cast not the
original, which was concocted c. 1700 or earlier and then found its way into
the Medici collection.

Paul Anderson's coin and the one in the German auction of October 1977 that
he also illustrates are poorer duplicates of the same cast.  The German
auction piece has dark deposits so is probably different from Paul's; it
seems unlikely that Paul's specimen is the same coin which has however been
cleaned sometime after 1977.

Curtis Clay

   From: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ACFDL@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Snible
   Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:37 PM
   To: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [ACFDL] Counterfeit sesterius in The Celator


   The January issue of The Celator includes an article by Paul Anderson on
   a Commodus sestertius in his collection.

   The first half of the article discusses hunting down provenance using
   old auction catalogs. There is a twist at the end, though! Anderson's
   sestertius is revealed to be a cast from the Medici collection and
   illustrated in a book by Banti.

   The article includes a nice illustration. I'm not a "Roman guy", but
   the sestertius looks genuine to me and passed an unnamed German auction
   house in 1977.

   If you don't get The Celator and wish to read this article I happen to
   have an extra copy of this issue and can send it to you. Send an email
   privately.

   -Ed Snible

   PS: If you are into modern fakes, there is a new issue of The
   Counterfeit Coin newsletter online at http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/
   PPS: An amusing picture of a fake $100 can be seen at at
   http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/441167.html






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sure looked real to this collector Ed.If its as good as it looked ,it may have
fooled the romans also!

Ed Snible <esnible@...> wrote:          The January issue of The Celator
includes an article by Paul Anderson on
a Commodus sestertius in his collection.

The first half of the article discusses hunting down provenance using
old auction catalogs. There is a twist at the end, though! Anderson's
sestertius is revealed to be a cast from the Medici collection and
illustrated in a book by Banti.

The article includes a nice illustration. I'm not a "Roman guy", but
the sestertius looks genuine to me and passed an unnamed German auction
house in 1977.

If you don't get The Celator and wish to read this article I happen to
have an extra copy of this issue and can send it to you. Send an email
privately.

-Ed Snible

PS: If you are into modern fakes, there is a new issue of The
Counterfeit Coin newsletter online at http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/
PPS: An amusing picture of a fake $100 can be seen at at
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/441167.html






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would like to see the sesterius .Can you mcopy a scan and e mail it to me?

Ed Snible <esnible@...> wrote:          The January issue of The Celator
includes an article by Paul Anderson on
a Commodus sestertius in his collection.

The first half of the article discusses hunting down provenance using
old auction catalogs. There is a twist at the end, though! Anderson's
sestertius is revealed to be a cast from the Medici collection and
illustrated in a book by Banti.

The article includes a nice illustration. I'm not a "Roman guy", but
the sestertius looks genuine to me and passed an unnamed German auction
house in 1977.

If you don't get The Celator and wish to read this article I happen to
have an extra copy of this issue and can send it to you. Send an email
privately.

-Ed Snible

PS: If you are into modern fakes, there is a new issue of The
Counterfeit Coin newsletter online at http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/
PPS: An amusing picture of a fake $100 can be seen at at
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/441167.html






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The January issue of The Celator includes an article by Paul Anderson on
a Commodus sestertius in his collection.

The first half of the article discusses hunting down provenance using
old auction catalogs.  There is a twist at the end, though!  Anderson's
sestertius is revealed to be a cast from the Medici collection and
illustrated in a book by Banti.

The article includes a nice illustration.  I'm not a "Roman guy", but
the sestertius looks genuine to me and passed an unnamed German auction
house in 1977.

If you don't get The Celator and wish to read this article I happen to
have an extra copy of this issue and can send it to you.  Send an email
privately.

-Ed Snible

PS: If you are into modern fakes, there is a new issue of The
Counterfeit Coin newsletter online at http://www.coinauthentication.co.uk/
PPS: An amusing picture of a fake $100 can be seen at at
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/441167.html

You hit the nail on the head.  It is without question struck from the
lipanoff dies.

The style does not even come close to an original in this series, so
even without knowing it was a die match to those dies, anyone
familiar with the style of these would know it was not genuine.

When I first look at one of the lipanff examples, I get the
impression that the Gorgon is bald with a laurel wreath on it's
head.  On genuine examples, you know right way that you are looking
at a fancy hair style on it's head, and would never mistake the locks
of hair for laurel leafs.  That is only one of many things wrong with
the coins style.

Another "artistic" problem is that bull's horns are both on the same
side of it's head (look closely, and you will see what I mean).  That
is just silly.

robert Kokotailo


At 03:30 PM 1/12/2008, Ed Snible wrote:
>I noticed a Lipanoff counterfeit on eBay.  Following ACFLD's rules, I
>have put the images on my web site without identifying the eBay seller.
>
>http://www.snible.org/coins/fake/lipanoff_parion.html
>
>I contacted the seller, who has 100% positive feedback on over 300
>items.  The seller tells me the eBay coin is similar to the Lipanoff
>fake, but authentic, and with a 100% money refund if an expert confirms
>that it is fake.
>
>I'm interested in comments as to how the eBay coin achieved its unusual
>surfaces.  To me it looks like it was poked with a nail.  Perhaps acid
>was applied to parts of the coin but not the whole coin.  Unusual.
>
>I hope everyone is well.  I just returned from NYINC.  Sadly, although I
>purchased Prokopov's two most recent books at the show, I misplaced them
>and no longer have them!  So I can't review them yet.  But they looked
>good at first glance.
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin

WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
VCOINS ANCIENT : http://www.vcoins.com/ancient/calgarycoin
VCOINS MODERN : http://www.vcoins.com/world/calgarycoin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I noticed a Lipanoff counterfeit on eBay.  Following ACFLD's rules, I
have put the images on my web site without identifying the eBay seller.

http://www.snible.org/coins/fake/lipanoff_parion.html

I contacted the seller, who has 100% positive feedback on over 300
items.  The seller tells me the eBay coin is similar to the Lipanoff
fake, but authentic, and with a 100% money refund if an expert confirms
that it is fake.

I'm interested in comments as to how the eBay coin achieved its unusual
surfaces.  To me it looks like it was poked with a nail.  Perhaps acid
was applied to parts of the coin but not the whole coin.  Unusual.

I hope everyone is well.  I just returned from NYINC.  Sadly, although I
purchased Prokopov's two most recent books at the show, I misplaced them
and no longer have them!  So I can't review them yet.  But they looked
good at first glance.

-Ed

This lawsuit could go either way for coin sales on auction sites.

---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFDIt seems to me that this would *have* to
be the case (i.e., that Ebay would interpret any ruling as narrowly as
possible).  Certainly for items like coins, where there are thousands of
constantly-shifting, non-branded items available, trying to filter them would be
like trying to filter falling leaves in Autumn - "hey!! you can't fall, you're
still green!!".  The only way they could do it, I think, is to just stop
offering coins and such items entirely, and all *that* would do is force the
items to some other venue.

How about allofancientcoins.com??

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
   To: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 01:34
   Subject: [ACFDL] Digest Number 600


   Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFD
   Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
     1a. Re: Tiffanys Sues eBay over Counterfeits From: E. Watts
   View All Topics | Create New Topic Message
     1a. Re: Tiffanys Sues eBay over Counterfeits
     Posted by: "E. Watts" bannatum@...   bannatum
     Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:33 am (PST)
     At 9:08 PM -0800 11/13/07, Dave Welsh wrote:
     >This development is of considerable interest to numismatic and
     >antiquities collectors and dealers, because of the incidence of
     >fakes and counterfeits in these areas of eBay offerings.

     TIffany's action almost certainly has to do with trademark issues,
     confusion of source and dilution of the Tiffany brand. Any outcome is
     unlikely to have any applicability to numismatic fakes; if they are
     required to be responsive to claims of counterfeiting, they will
     comply in the narrowest possible way, responding only to what they
     are required to, i.e. merchandise branded as from Tiffany's.
     --

     Ted

     -------------
     | Be Seeing You |
     -------------






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 9:08 PM -0800 11/13/07, Dave Welsh wrote:
>This development is of considerable interest to numismatic and
>antiquities collectors and dealers, because of the incidence of
>fakes and counterfeits in these areas of eBay offerings.

TIffany's action almost certainly has to do with trademark issues,
confusion of source and dilution of the Tiffany brand. Any outcome is
unlikely to have any applicability to numismatic fakes; if they are
required to be responsive to claims of counterfeiting, they will
comply in the narrowest possible way, responding only to what they
are required to, i.e. merchandise branded as from Tiffany's.
--

         Ted

     -------------
   | Be Seeing You |
     -------------

eBAY, TIFFANY FIGHT OVER FAKES

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/11/ebay-tiffanys-f.html#posts

A legal battle between titans of industry began Tuesday in New York, and the
outcome may have serious implications for the future of Internet commerce.
Tiffany & Co. is suing eBay for allegedly allowing sale of counterfeit
merchandise on the auction site. Should Tiffany prevail, eBay and other
e-commerce sites could have to change the way they do business.

It's no secret that eBay.com is a favorite haunt for counterfeiters. Four years
ago, Tiffany officials purchased hundreds of items labeled as "Tiffany's" and
determined that 73 percent were fakes, according to court documents.

The jewelry and design firm filed suit against eBay in 2004, alleging that
because eBay must have known about the overwhelming amount of cheating on the
site, it contributed to the fraudulent sales.

"eBay has disclaimed the responsibility for sale of counterfeit items on its
site," Tiffany's lawyer James Swire, said Tuesday during his opening statement.
“eBay simply turned a blind eye. ... Because of that, it is liable for
contributory infringement."

…

**********
COMMENTARY
**********

This development is of considerable interest to numismatic and antiquities
collectors and dealers, because of the incidence of fakes and counterfeits in
these areas of eBay offerings. Some numismatic eBay sellers are already up in
arms because eBay is now prohibiting sellers from grading their own coins or
selling coins certified by PCI, SEGS, & NTC (see recent posts in RCC).
It will be interesting to see whether eBay now moves beyond the questions of
grading and certification to dealing with the much thornier issues of
authenticity, misrepresentation, doctored coins and misattribution. I have long
contended that eBay would only take action to clean up the collectibles fraud
mess when they were forced to by governmental or legal initiatives - perhaps
that moment has finally arrived.
Dave Welsh
Unidroit-L Listowner
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L
dwelsh46@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am away at a coin show, and checking e-mails on a remote computer via a web
mail program, which makes keeping track e-mails more difficult.  That is why I
have not responded earlier.

The mirror surface on proof coins comes from having been struck with polished
dies on selected blanks.  Such coins have a great deal of lustre, but the
mirror like surfaces are just an ultra smooth surface.  Lustre is
structures on
the coins surface created as metal flows under the dies.

If you take a modern mirror proof coin, the proof finish will just
flash at you
as you move it under a light.  But if you take a nice uncirculated coin of the
same type (non-proof), the lustre will show as a "cartwheel" of light rotating
around the coin as you move the coin under a light.  The two effects are very
different.

Ancient Coin Fakes and Deceptions  (ACFDAll these discussions are making me
realize that, actually, I have no idea what "lustre" actually looks like.  I've
sort of realized this all along (I'm new to coin collecting, having taken it up
casually when I inherited a small collection from a relative).  Unfortunately,
there's no way to learn this from descriptions, methinks.

Does anyone have pictures on a website somewhere, that coins with and without
lustre??  I don't know if such conditions actually come out well in pictures or
not...

I have a stack of silver coins here, that have been handled ALOT because I love
holding them in my hands, dropping them into my pocket, and trying to visualize
being a merchant from 300 years ago, coming to town to trade (I don't think your
average person on the street dealt with one-ounce silver coins very often)...
okay, wait, I'm waaaaaayy off topic here!!  Anyway, I have three Spanish milled
dollars (pieces of eight) from around 1800, one US trade dollar from 1876, one
British trade dollar from 1899.

The pieces of eight are all heavily chop-marked, but have "sort of" a shine in
the larger open areas (I call it "polish").

The US Trade Dollar is very clean and shiny, but does not actually reflect an
image; this sounds somewhat like what Dave Welsh was describing in his message
yesterday.  It does *not* look anything like the mirrored surface in recent US
proof coins, of which I have several sets.

The British trade dollar, by contrast, has an almost matte finish, as if it was
designed NOT to be shiny.  Yet all detail in the coin is clearly visible.

So which of these are exhibiting lustre??  Are there different "types" of
lustre??  The three types of coins have distinctly different appearances to
their surfaces...  And yes, I realize that nobody can actually comment on these
coins without seeing them, but I'm trying to describe what I see, from an
amateur's point of view.

Derell Licht


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is a difference between "smooth and shiny" like a mirror, and
"lustrous."

"Lustrous" means exhibiting a characteristic scattering of reflected light
which differentiates a surface from being smooth and mirror-like, and may
also give it apparent visual depth (as in the case of pearls).

You normally cannot see a reflected image in a lustrous surface.

Dave Welsh

www.classicalcoins.com

service@...



-----Original Message-----
From: ACFDL@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ACFDL@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Blazick
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Dave Welsh; 'Jb'; ACFDL@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACFDL] RE: Lustre



Lustre is not the smooth shinny appearance that silver coins exhibit?

Dave Welsh <dwelsh46@cox. <mailto:dwelsh46%40cox.net> net> wrote: Proof
coins are not lustrous. They are shiny (with mirror like surfaces
normally, unless manufactured to have a matte finish or other variant). They
are not really struck, but are instead slowly impressed.

Lustre is the result of a myriad microscopic "flow marks" on the surface of
the coin. On ancient hammer struck coins, and on modern coins that are
rapidly struck, these may to some degree be the result of acoustic
vibrations.

Dave Welsh

www.classicalcoins.com

service@classicalco <mailto:service%40classicalcoins.com> ins.com

-----Original Message-----
From: ACFDL@yahoogroups. <mailto:ACFDL%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:ACFDL@yahoogroups. <mailto:ACFDL%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of Jb
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 8:19 AM
To: ACFDL@yahoogroups. <mailto:ACFDL%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [ACFDL] Commodus D4enarius

I know what the lustre comes from but not why Robert.In modern day coin
proofs the planchets are stamped 3 to four times with more pressure than the
business strikes and isnt that the reasom for proof lustre?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. <http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com> yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]