Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Imperatorial- fake or real gold Lysimachos & Alexandriacoins too

Expand Messages
  • gibfrog
    Alan/CFDL: Thank you, I was also bothered by the softness, but a few months ago, prior to the Sear authenticated fake cast AAH Pertinax denarius, I saw a Sear
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 1, 2005
      Alan/CFDL:

      Thank you, I was also bothered by the softness, but a few months ago,
      prior to the Sear authenticated fake cast AAH Pertinax denarius, I
      saw a Sear authenticated gold coin that looked cast and I became more
      conservative in my judgements of cast gold fakes. I now know that
      even Sear can mistakenly authenticate a cast fake.

      Also last time I doubted an Alexadraicoins item, it got very heated.
      I consider Alexandriacoins to be a generally reliable dealer, but
      mistakes may happen. The last time Irena Petrov (Alexandriacoins) &
      I had a dispute about a Trajan Decius aureus, she withdrew the coin
      and sent it to be authenticated by some servie that I do not know
      of. The name of the authenticiation/encapsulation service ends
      with "?SG" and they give 10 potential reasons for not encapsulating.
      The service "?SG" determined that the coin had "#4 Altered Surfaces"
      so they would not encapsulate it. So, we both sort of could claim
      victory and the coin was relegated to her private collection.

      (However, she did not recall the HONORIUS. 393-423 AD. AR "chocolate"
      Miliarense which matched post strike defects with a Lanz coin and I
      did not follow up with the unfortunate French "winner"
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13755)

      Here are some of the previous posts about the Trajan Decius fake.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13753
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13767
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13801
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13802
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/13803

      Sincerely yours,
      Cliff Laubstein

      --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel VanArsdale"
      <alanv@s...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello Cliff / CFDL,
      > I notice lately a lot of fakes have fairly convincing "beat
      > up" looks to them, especially in gold. This one is in my opinion a
      > modern fake, based just upon the photo, and no comparative
      analysis.
      > Close to looking "real" by the photo, but not quite, in my opinion.
      > It should be kept in mind blastcasts can be in gold also, and will
      > generally be of better quality than most blastcast denarius exposed
      > here. Also dies using electroplate facing are active in gold, and
      > also generally of better quality. I am not sure here if the beat up
      > appearance is fake, or transferred from an authentic host. It looks
      > a bit soft to me in parts, for the beat up surface to be so
      > convincingly transferred from an authentic host (so I suspect the
      > host was not so beat up as this example is now, that it has been
      > processed after manufacture). I am not sure how this was made, but
      I
      > think it is stylistically perfect, but shows minor softness in
      parts
      > of the figures diagnostic of modern transfer forgery of some sort.
      > Best Wishes,
      > Alan Van Arsdale
      > --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, "gibfrog"
      > <laubstein@a...> wrote:
      > >
      > > John/Alan/CFDL:
      > >
      > > Alexandriacoins has a gold Lysimachos stater for sale -
      > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8356459914
      > > which looks like a more than a die match to the Imperatorial coin
      > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8334568165
      > > which is a reverse die match (and IMHO an Obverse relative) to a
      > > known Eftis (BIDANCIENT)fake
      > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8325581388
      > >
      > > Here is a composite of the Eftis & Imperatorial
      > > Obverse - http://www.solisearch.net/ims/pic.php?
      > u=14121ht33Q&i=201986
      > > Reverse - http://www.solisearch.net/ims/pic.php?
      > u=14121ht33Q&i=201987
      > >
      > > Here are some previous posts regarding this pair
      > >
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/14584
      > >
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/14592
      > >
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/14596
      > >
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/14604
      > >
      >
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/14618
      > >
      > > Sincerely yours,
      > > Cliff Laubstein
      > >
      > > --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, "gibfrog"
      > > <laubstein@a...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > John/Alan/CFDL:
      > > >
      > > > 1) I do not see the transfer weaknesses in the Imperatorial
      coin
      > as
      > > > much as I see them in the Eftis coin, despite the Eftis coin
      > being
      > > > less worn. However, I see a hub or seed linkage and I might
      > have
      > > > been hasty condemning the Imperatorial stater purely on the
      > basis
      > > of
      > > > a link to the Eftis fake. I do not know enought about the
      style
      > of
      > > > this series.
      > > >
      > > > 2) When I manipulate coin images from different sources, I do
      > not
      > > > know how to determine the actual size, without an adjacent
      ruler
      > or
      > > > an object of known scale (like a US quater or penny). Even
      with
      > > such
      > > > an object, I do not know if 0.1% accuracy is achievable. I
      > would
      > > be
      > > > hard pressed to achieve such accuracy. With my present tools,
      I
      > > > could achieve ~0.3% accuracy, with careful work. In the two
      > images
      > > > in question, only relative sizes are evaluated, not the
      absolute
      > > > sizes. In truth , I do not know if the Imperatorial coin is 5%
      > > > larger than the Eftis or visa versa.
      > > >
      > > > Thank you for your time & explantions!
      > > >
      > > > Sincerely yours,
      > > > Cliff Laubstein
      > > >
      > > > --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel
      > > > VanArsdale" <alanv@s...> wrote:
      > > > > Hello John / Cliff / CFDL,
      > > > > On the reverses, notice how the plume on the helmet is
      > > longer
      > > > > at right than at left (I think this is not due to lighting or
      > > > > focus). It also appears at left it has been recut a little
      > > thicker
      > > > > relative to at right. This could be either a transfer fault,
      > or
      > > the
      > > > > result of ancient die recutting (in the first case they are
      > host
      > > > die
      > > > > links, not die links, in the second case they would be die
      > > links).
      > > > > The reverses are so close, including in the third dimension
      > > (front
      > > > > to back), they must be either die links, or share in common
      > the
      > > > same
      > > > > reverse die historically (one or both via a host coin).
      > > > > They are too close for the relationship to be
      > explainable
      > > by
      > > > > a forger cutting a die out using a two dimensional host image
      > > (such
      > > > > as by imprinting the image from a book on to the die and
      > cutting
      > > it
      > > > > out), unless the photo was good, and the skill of the modern
      > die
      > > > > cutter high. I suppose it is possible a very skilled ancient
      > > > > barbarian die cutter could have recut a cast die from a coin.
      > In
      > > > > this case, there would be size difference (the barbarous die
      > > would
      > > > > be smaller than the official die, and thus the coins it
      > struck,
      > > in
      > > > > terms of the figures), on the order of about 8%. If both were
      > > from
      > > > > cast dies, then there would be no size difference, until a
      > coin
      > > > from
      > > > > the original die was compared. The two fields appear to share
      > > > little
      > > > > to nothing in common (hard to say as the photo at left is
      > > blurry),
      > > > > as indicated by the plume already.
      > > > > If the two reverses are related, it does not give any
      > > hard
      > > > > evidence as to authenticity. If one is known to be fake, the
      > > other
      > > > > can be an authentic die link to the host for the fake die. If
      > > they
      > > > > are related by a hub link, and the host for the hub is known
      > to
      > > be
      > > > > fake, then every coin where that hub is used is fake as well
      > (in
      > > > > classical coins, except for single letter hubs). An innocenty
      > > coin,
      > > > > or die link to it, can be used to make a hub. So hub fault /
      > > > > detoriation should be evident to determine which coins with
      > the
      > > > hubs
      > > > > are later generation. If the hub is derived from a coin known
      > to
      > > be
      > > > > fake, and known to be made from free hand engraved dies, then
      > all
      > > > > coins using that image, if it is detailed enough to be
      > reliably
      > > > > unique in morphology, are fake.
      > > > > On the obverses, notice by comparison, the Eftis is a
      > > modern
      > > > > fake. But that does not mean the coin at left is authentic,
      > jsut
      > > by
      > > > > comparasion, it can be seen the Eftis has transfer softening
      > > > (versus
      > > > > die or coin wear, transfer softening can come from host wear
      > or
      > > die
      > > > > wear seen in the host, but in this case, it is in my opinion
      > firm
      > > > > evidence of modern forgery, look especially at the top of the
      > > > horn).
      > > > > The human eye is very sensitive to faces (the brain
      > > actually,
      > > > > using data from the eye). Only very slight changes often are
      > > > > detectable, tis is why forgery, even quite accurate transfer
      > > > > methods, are difficult for faces (bust and faces of figures
      on
      > > the
      > > > > reverse). Once markets except odd expressions in faces
      > however,
      > > > then
      > > > > forgery is made much easier. In transfer technology, the
      > > morphology
      > > > > is at times by some methods in a plastic state, or in a very
      > thin
      > > > > foil which can easily be subjected to deformations, including
      > > > > changes in the relative positions of figures, or parts of
      > > figures.
      > > > > Cliff, so far as relative size within the same coin,
      > that
      > > can
      > > > > be determined by a photo. But how do you determine it between
      > two
      > > > > coins? I do not think any measurements given by the seller
      are
      > > > > accurate enough to work with, at least better than say about
      > 5%.
      > > I
      > > > > am sure the reverses share a common die historically, some
      > way, I
      > > > > suspect the obverse dies do as well, but I am not sure. In
      > these
      > > > > issues, the authentic dies, for the obverse, can be pretty
      > close.
      > > > > This is also a heavily faked series, for centuries now, and
      > many
      > > of
      > > > > these passing the marekts, at all levels, are not ancient, or
      > are
      > > > > babarous imitations (as in not Thracian Roman or Greek). Also
      > in
      > > > > this case, I am not so sure we can even rule out transfer die
      > > > > technology being used in "official" examples, namely casting
      > of
      > > > > originals to make dies. Nor can we even rule out the transfer
      > > dies
      > > > > being about the same size as the originals, as the transfer
      > dies
      > > > > could by heated and pounded, to expand them, then recut. It
      is
      > > > still
      > > > > my opinion that for Roman Imperial coins, and non barbarous
      > Greek
      > > > > coins, there is no evidence transfer die technology was used,
      > or
      > > > > hubbing was used, except for single letters and coins which
      > were
      > > > > cast officially.
      > > > > In my opinion, the coin at right is modern, and the coin
      > at
      > > > > left, just by looking at the photos, I am uncertain about. I
      > > doubt
      > > > > anyone really understands all the details about how these
      were
      > > made
      > > > > in ancient times, or can reliably sort out everyone that is
      > not
      > > > > ancient, at this time. Until fairly recently, these were in
      > > effect
      > > > > coins in many periods and places, thus carrying small
      premiums
      > > over
      > > > > the melt often, and thus subject to forgery. Anyone who
      > imagines
      > > > > small premiums over melt can not lead to forgery of high
      > quality,
      > > > > often passing all markets today, should learn more about
      > > > the "Beruit
      > > > > School" in the 1950's. Some of that work, has been exposed,
      > other
      > > > > aspects of it, still pass freely today, and are universally
      in
      > > > > Western markets accepted as authentic now, just as some of
      the
      > > > > Hofmann dies are.
      > > > > Best Wishes,
      > > > > Alan Van Arsdale
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, "gibfrog"
      > > > > <laubstein@a...> wrote:
      > > > > > John:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I do not pretend to know more about Lysimachos coinage than
      > > you.
      > > > > > With your handle, you must study it more than I. I only
      own
      > a
      > > > > single
      > > > > > Lysimachos Tetradrachm.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > However, I respectfully disagree with you. Both coins have
      > the
      > > > > same
      > > > > > seed or hub, but they may be some recutting. There is
      > > definately
      > > > > > doctoring, different perspectives, lighting and
      centering.
      > > Many
      > > > > > Greek obverses have more depth and with the previously
      cited
      > > > > factors,
      > > > > > matches may be decieveing.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Please indulge me and first examine the reverses.
      > > > > > http://www.solisearch.net/ims/pic.php?u=14121ht33Q&i=201987
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I got a fairly good match on size, rotation and the angle.
      > The
      > > > > > centering, lighting, doctoring and transfer errors are
      > > > different.
      > > > > > However, you must agree that there is first order congruity
      > of
      > > > the
      > > > > > reverses - same devices & legend size/orientation. The
      four
      > > > > > horozontal blue lines help me see this. Please see the
      > > > > circled "IO"
      > > > > > of BASILIOS and the same transfer errors. Also please
      > examine
      > > > the
      > > > > > circled dent on Athena's calf. This actually looks like
      the
      > > > > remenant
      > > > > > of linear fault, as ther are more dents to the left &
      > right.
      > > How
      > > > > can
      > > > > > this be?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Now let us examine the Obverse -
      > > > > > http://www.solisearch.net/ims/pic.php?u=14121ht33Q&i=201986
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Here the size is fine, but I still have a small rotational
      > and
      > > > > > angular error. Look how the Horn & Ear cross the middle
      > blue
      > > > > line,
      > > > > > they should be the same if not for the rotational and
      > angular
      > > > > fault.
      > > > > > Oh well...
      > > > > > The difference at the corner of the mouth may be recutting
      > or a
      > > > > > transfer error that is exaggerated by the
      > > perspective/lighting.
      > > > > > Again, you must agree that there is first order congruity
      of
      > > the
      > > > > > obverses - same portrait size/orientation. Now please
      > examine
      > > > > the
      > > > > > little die break, in the first curl on the horn, circled in
      > > > > black.
      > > > > > Look at the little die break at the end of the head band
      > > circled
      > > > > in
      > > > > > black. These identical little features lead me to the same
      > > seed
      > > > > or
      > > > > > hub.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There are more little identical features and there are
      > > > > differences.
      > > > > > However, I stand by my assertation of the same seed/hub,
      > > > different
      > > > > > doctoring/perspective/lighting.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Sincerely yours,
      > > > > > Cliff Laubstein
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In CoinForgeryDiscussionList@yahoogroups.com, John
      > Rieske
      > > > > > <lysimachos_ohio@y...> wrote:
      > > > > > > Cliff,
      > > > > > > While I agree that the stater shown is not authentic,
      > > > > > > side by side studies of the images show that they are
      > > > > > > not from the same dies. I have seen the Imperatorial
      > > > > > > Lysimachos before, however, and do believe it was in
      > > > > > > an Efis offering, but it is not a resurrection of the
      > > > > > > one you have shown. The faces of Alexander are too
      > > > > > > markedly different in proportions to be the same.
      > > > > > > John
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ______________________________________________________
      > > > > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief
      > effort.
      > > > > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.