FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Resources => 
Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers => Topic started by: Numerianus on February 13, 2009, 08:58:13 am
-
The question here is: an aureus of Lucius Verus is it a fake.
The coin was sold on an auction on January 11, 2005 and the following information
can be easily find:
Lot description:
Lucius Verus (AD 161-169). Gold aureus (7.37 gm). Rome, AD 164. L VERVS AVG ARMENIACVS, bare head right /
REX ARMEN DAT TR P IIII IMP II COS II, L. Verus, flanked by lictor shouldering fasces and another standing
attendant, seated left on camp chair on platform, extending his right hand to crown Armenian king who stands
left before platform, raising his right hand to guide the crown onto his head.
BMCRE 300. Cohen 158 (100 Fr.). RIC 512 (R2). Calico 2154 (same dies).
Mint state. Verus had been victorious in Armenia in 163, accepting an imperatorial acclamation and the title Armeniacus.
In 164 the coins show him investing the Roman nominee Sohaemus as king of Armenia: "a king given to the Armenians."
The same obverse die was also used with the type Victory inscribing VIC AVG onto a shield set on a palm tree (BMCRE 294, pl. 58, 9).
The coin, in fact, is not rare and all large collections of aurei conntain a specimen, always uncirculated
and coming from the same pair of dies.
In the recent decade several dozens of coins of this type was sold by the major numismatic firms.
This is explained that, presumably, all coins came from the so-called Aventine hoard of 1893 the history of which was
discussed in the thread
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=50988.0
In fact, the sources I disposed at the moment do not confirm this: Cohen 158 was not mentioned between
types found.
I show three specimens. The first specimen is of the most common type. The second one is the mentioned one.
The specimen with 5 cercles in the left part of the platform seems to be produced by the later state of the reverse
die.
-
During lengthy discussions the specimen became the subject of a detailed analysis as a possible fake.
The reason for this is that the obverse of this soin was supposedly made by the same die as other aurei.
At least, it greatly resembles.
To such extent that Curtis Clay believed that it is the same and claimed:
"I think that's the same obv. die too, just differently illuminated and photographed."
"In my opinion, formed over many decades of compiling die studies of Roman imperial coins, there are so many points of absolute identity, that the dies must be the same.
Two apparent points of DIFFERENCE, cannot outweigh the 100 or so points of absolute IDENTITY.
I don't think there is any real difference in the beard, and as for the apparent slight displacement of the dot, who knows,
one would have to examine the specimens themselves or plaster casts of them under magnification.
As a rule, one does not find Roman dies which differ in only a few small points, but are otherwise identical.
When dies are different, they differ in dozens of details, as was to be expected since they were engraved freehand!"
Unfortunately, one must admit that the dies are different. Moreover, one cannot explain the difference just because
they are different state of the same die (altered by re-engraving or repairing), fotoshoping or the light effects.
To my opinion, the Gemini coin is produced by a different die which could not be produced by a "freehand".
The reverse die also have some particularities needed to be explaned.
It seems is reasonable to transfer the discussion on this particular coin to the fake section frequented by
"fake hunters" whose experience may help us greatly. I hope also that the thread on Aventine hoard will be extended
by new observations.
-
Silence...
OK, do you think that there is enough evidences to conclude? Namely, like this:
"The second coin auctioned 2005 has the obverse produced from the die different from that used for other coins.
This die is closed to the authentic one to such extent that it can be only a modern copy.
The fake report should be prepared".
I have modified slightly the arrangements of the blow-ups showing the differences.
Note that the Baldwin examples seems to be fresher. One cannot explain the position of the dot in the
second coin just because the die was polished to such an extent that the dot dissapeared and was re-engraved.
On, apparently, the latest state it is (almost) on the same position as before. The same remark can be applied to
the substential difference in the character E of the legend.
Note that if we admit that second coin is a fake, the clouds become darker on all other specimens. Indeed, if someone is able to create such a quality copy, why he did not try to continue further in the same spirit and try to do better?
I do not exlude that there are other copies between authentic specimens.
One may ask why there are so many specimens appeared on the market recently, hundred years after the discovery
of the Aventine hoard etc. I am suspicious why there are flow lines on the die. Is it common?
There are forum members that are very smart with Photoshop and know how to remove distortions and make a superpositions of photos. It would be interesting to check what is going on with other examples. Some of them have some differences that are not easy to explain by the different states of the dies.
-
I just want to remind for all members a story with fake Leontini tetradrachmes. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=50401.0
Maybe i'm wrong, but i see very clear parralels within these two stories:
"Hoard myth"
"Same dies with minor differents"
"Passing through worldclass auktion houses"
etc...
Well, a Leontini dies was published at BOC, maybe IAPN experts must took attention and at this story?
P.S. A "silence" is not a good solution for this problem, i think...
-
Silence...
Do you think that it would be fair to ask first the auction house about this troubling discovery?
To whom I should address?
In fact, the business is based on the confidence of customers. So, the auction houses are much more interested that
all dubious cases are elucidated than just amateur observers.
I recall that the reverse of this coin also deviates from other examples. The trouble is that there are even less points
of difference but they are more difficult to explain.
Please, look at the soldier figure. There is a scratch behind except the last one (with the altered/repaired die). On the Gemini coin this scratch looks like a detail of the design and the bases of the characters are closer to the sholder and look differently...
-
There are a number of parts to the question.
Firstly the description made is that the coin is rare, or similar words. Well perhaps it is not common is the best answer.
As for the fake claim, well even the best of people make mistakes. however I will point out that in specific silver hoards recently reviewed a high percentage of the coins are from the same die. As if the coins were commissioned for a specific purpose and struck as such. The deal was done from the one source to the one receiver and through circumstances the 'hoard' was hoarded and has since been uncovered.
So perhaps we have a similar incident here but in gold. Note silver was the preferred metal in the oriental trade.
-
I will point out that in specific silver hoards recently reviewed a high percentage of the coins are from the same die.
So perhaps we have a similar incident here but in gold.
I am sorry, but I do not understand the direction of your answer. Nobody (and there are hundreds and hundreds visits
of the two threads) was surprised that the hoard coins could are from the same die.
This happens quite often.
In this thread we discuss only the AUTHENTICITY of a single coin, namely, the specimen auctioned in 2005.
To other issues I would prefer comment in the thread on the Aventine hoard.
-
Now that my statement is accepted and the air on that issue is somewhat clear or at least clear to me (and possibly a few others) a person is questioning the authenticity of one single coin.
For what purpose is this being done? To expose this auction house of presumably an honest error. Did you, yourself, or an acquaintance buy this coin? I have a number of recently recorded instances where a European coin house endeavoured a major deceit on a client or two but that matter has been resolved. However we have with this auction group two of the great houses of ancient coin sales that combine from time to time and from time to time there have been suggestions of a coin or two slipping through that have been suggested to be fake. Accussations are rather common of fakery at present and many of them are unproven.
There is in this case no general reason to assume at all that the coin is a fake and given the guarantee from such auctions if it were proven to be I am sure arrangements would be made to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Is this a ciop out by me? Yes absolutely because there is no real reason to suspect a problem.
-
Fine, what ever is to be removed can be removed by a moderator.
Your so called simple question is rather more complex than is being suggested.
-
There is in this case no general reason to assume at all that the coin is a fake...
You are the first person who took a clear position...
To my opinion, there is a reason and I am trying to share my conclusions with others.
The logic is very elementary:
Are dies the same as for other specimens?
Two answers: YES or NO.
If you prefer to say "YES", you need to explain a few apparent differencies, e.g., the shift of the dot and
the style of the characters E.
If you say "NO", i.e. the dies are different you are invited to confront the statement of Curtis Clay.
In fact, you have the same right to make a study of authenticity of this coin as anybody else: to compare, to search the literature,
to use all your experience to provide arguments pro and contra...
To my mind large preparotary work is already done due to efforts by Xintaris75, Mark Fox, Maffeo and others...
-
It seems to me that the second coin is from a different die than the first and third. No, I'm not challenging Curtis, that'd be like a flea attacking an elephant, but they look different to me. I think the base of the neck is where this is most evident. Also, looking at the inscription and hair appears to demonstrate this. Maybe they are the same die and one was just re-worked after much use- as was suggested by another member.
Is it fake? I don't know. But to my eye the dies look different.
I also don't think any expert would confirm or deny this coin's authenticity from the photos alone, and for good reason.
Nick
-
It seems to me that the second coin is from a different die than the first and third. No, I'm not challenging Curtis, that'd be like a flea attacking an elephant, but they look different to me. I think the base of the neck is where this is most evident. Also, looking at the inscription and hair appears to demonstrate this. Maybe they are the same die and one was just re-worked after much use- as was suggested by another member.
Is it fake? I don't know. But to my eye the dies look different.
I also don't think any expert would confirm or deny this coin's authenticity from the photos alone, and for good reason.
No, it will not be an attack of the elephant. You have an advantage to see the arrangements of enlarged pictures to
compare details.
So, your idea is whether the die is not just a different state. To re-cut the dot at the beginning of the legend one needs quite an effort: to remove a layer of the metal to the bottom of the pit. Similar efforts one needs to re-engrave the character E.
For which reason? Anyway, how to explain the existence of the third coin where we see, rather clealy, that a previous state of the obverse die is combined with a later state of the reverse die?
To my mind, the hypothesis that the die is just another state of the same fails. We must admit the existence of another set of dies used to fabricate the second coin...
-
Just to be clear - we are now talking about ONE fake coin?
-
Just to be clear - we are now talking about ONE fake coin?
Yes. Whatever is the authenticity of the first and the third specimen, the second coin was struck by different
dies having almost unnoticeable but substantial distinctions. Such kind of distinctions cannot be explauined either than by an intention to deceive. So, the second coin seems to be a very dangerous fake. That is the point.
-
I really hope one of our imaging experts will do one of those image overlay GIF images on this. I have been trying to figure out how to do it, but am not there yet. Just in doing some transparent layers to me there are some differences that leave me less than certain that these are the same dies. I can't get the images to quite line up, the neck truncation seems off, if I match up the front of the hair and the nose, the back of the neck is off as are many of the letters....... Could just be me making novice errors though as this is the first time I have attempted this.....
-
I really hope one of our imaging experts will do one of those image overlay GIF images on this. I have been trying to figure out how to do it, but am not there yet. Just in doing some transparent layers to me there are some differences that leave me less than certain that these are the same dies. I can't get the images to quite line up, the neck truncation seems off, if I match up the front of the hair and the nose, the back of the neck is off as are many of the letters....... Could just be me making novice errors though as this is the first time I have attempted this.....
Any variation in the camera angle, the angle of the coin, or the lens type can cause these mis-match problems.
Richard
-
One can eliminate in Photoshop linear distortions caused by the camera angle but it will not be of great
help. We have different details and the arguments are based on this fact.
-
Just playing around I can get VerusBaldwin and Verus5 to match up pretty well, obverse and reverse, but VerusGemini won't match up as well for either one. The dies do seem to be the same, but there are many subtle differences.
Richard
-
I was also trying to play with Photoshop. The conclusion is similar. The dies of the second coin are extremely close but do not match others.
-
This was really confusing when it seemed to be about a whole group of coins. It should be a much simpler question now that is only about one coin. But it doesn't seem to have become simpler.
For the ONE coin that is still suspect, are we REALLY sure it is a modified die match (fake)? Or could it be just from a different official die? I know what Curtis said but maybe he also was looking at the group of photos as a group and not specifically comparing the ONE coin we now still question. Just looking, I am not at all sure it is a modified die match and I don't have time to study them or do an overlay. The posts above do not make the answer clear to me.
-
This was really confusing when it seemed to be about a whole group of coins. It should be a much simpler question now that is only about one coin. But it doesn't seem to have become simpler.
For the ONE coin that is still suspect, are we REALLY sure it is a modified die match (fake)? Or could it be just from a different official die? I know what Curtis said but maybe he also was looking at the group of photos as a group and not specifically comparing the ONE coin we now still question. Just looking, I am not at all sure it is a modified die match and I don't have time to study them or do an overlay. The posts above do not make the answer clear to me.
Thank you, Joe. It is highly important for our discussion that you see a problem and formulate questions.
It seems that you did agree that the obverse die is different. I also think that Curtis is not oblige to be stick on his opinion. Any person
has a right to make an error.
So, can it be simply a different OFFICIAL die, a rare one? Let us explore this without relating on the Curtis ststement.
If we exclude the supposed Aventine hoard aurei we can find vary rare occurencies of a bare head. So, this could be a plasible hypothesis. It is just by chance (namely, due to Aventine hoard) that we have so many bare heads. The bare head was engraved on several dies. There is nothing unusual that we have a bias in the representation of the dies.
Unfortunately, the analysis of the reverse die makes this hypothesis very shaky. The reverse of Gemini 2005, in a certain sense,
is looks even more close to that of a "standard" specimen. But it is also was produced from a different die. There are several distinct features. How do you explain the evolution of the characters behind the head of the soldier: "standard" - G. 2005 - "standard (later state)"?
-
I have tried to follow this discussion but find myself confused again, so I apollogize if you have already answered the following question.
Are you claiming that the Gemini coin is fake because it is so similar to the others that it cannot be a different die? And so you conclude that the forger used an authentic die to make his fake dies, then made a few alterations to avoid detection?
Nick
-
Are you claiming that the Gemini coin is fake because it is so similar to the others that it cannot be a different die? And so you conclude that the forger used an authentic die to make his fake dies, then made a few alterations to avoid detection?
Nick
Nick, your question is hard to answer because it about the technology used. I think that the obverse is engraved a fresh.
Markers we see on a "standard" seems to be missing (like dots in front of the nose). It seems that the precision is lower in the left part of the coin. On the other hand, the reverse looks like a cast copy, enhanced somehow. it is possible that some distortions are caused by
the deformation of the material used to make a copy of the die. It seems that similar die transfer technique was used to copy the obverse but there were accidents forcing to re-engrave some parts.
Of course, these suggestions has a shaky basis. i do not know how modern forgers are working. We are still waiting comments of knowledgeable people...
-
At this point, I believe the single coin remaining suspect is genuine with a different obverse die and a matching reverse die. I am not sure what differences on the reverse cannot best be explained by normal die wear and strike variation. I am not sure what differences on the reverse contradict normal die wear and strike variation.
-
Maybe, i loss something in these two threads, but i don't uderstand, why you are thinks, what single die is genuine ?
Well, we have some examples of these aurei, which have differencies which can be explained with repair. As well as we have a example with different reverse but exactly same obverse dies. Where in this "model line" a place of this coin ?
-
It is PERFECTLY NORMAL to have a different reverse die with the same overs dies and vice versa. As far as I can tell, this thread and this issue is all nonsense. I am perfectly willing to reconsider but someone has to make this very simple and clear for me so I get it, because I don't.
-
In short:
1. The obverse dies of G.2005 is different. At least, you believe, Joe (Curtis still did not revise his opinion).
2. The question: is the reverse die different?
To answer, one can make a look on this arrangement (2nd coin is G.2005).
-
It's normal, when dies differs like at these examples (same obvs. diff. revs.)
But it's not normal, when dies differs like G.2005 with rest.
So, they are (G2005&rest) differs like prototype and copy.
-
2. The question: is the reverse die different?
No it is the same die. And I mean I think it is the exact same die, not a modern copy.
-
And how do you explain that the space between the head of the soldier and the legend is much more narrow?
How it may happen that a tiny scratch ever visible became a detail, almost of the same deepness as the engraved part of the die?
How it may happen that its upper part dissappeared on the later state of the die (the 4th image) and the space became again larger?
On other coins there are no such peculiarities.
There are several other differences. Probably, one did not inspect so attentively the differences of such minor details if it would be just a coin, but the coin is under strong suspision: Curtis refused to believe that its obverse is done by a freehand!
-
When Curtis tells me this is a fake coin, I will accept that it is fake.
The scratch is still just a scratch. A scratch can become filled with dirt and disappear.
A double strike, uneven strike, bolder or weaker strike, slipping strike, die wear, die damage, die repair, or even a different camera angle can make a small feature appear a tiny bit closer.
These are just photos and I believe condemnation of this coin could only be done by someone with considerable skill and the coin in hand.
It is possible the coin is fake but I really think it is more likely these photo mosaics are just misleading. I suspect if we group other various die matched aurei photos, we can come up with the same type of results again and again. I specifically say aurei because I think gold flows a little different when struck and may be slightly more susceptible to these "inexplicable differences" but it might be true for silver and bronze too.
-
The scratch is still just a scratch. A scratch can become filled with dirt and disappear.
If we are talking about the same thing, I don't think that the scratch is a scratch. It seems obvious to me that it is a detail of the soldier's cloak, better struck on coin two.
Alex.
-
Wouldn't the differences in the scratch (above soldier's shoulder) help to authenticate this coin? I'd imagine that if such a small scratch were exactly the same on each coin then we should be very concerned. Right?
Nick
-
For clairity...
Some people believe a scratch in the original genuine Roman mint die and was erroneously turned into a feature on dies by a modern forger who, working with a scratched coin, mistook the scratch for a feature of the cloak. The coin made by the forger has been nicknamed G2005. These fake dies are so close to the originals they must have been initially using a genuine coin and some transfer process. But they are different, so they must have been touched up by hand engraving. The touch up was probably done either to cover up imperfections of the initial transfer process or was done to create the impression that the coin was from a different die. What was a scratch on the seed coin became a feature of the figure's cloak on the fake die. This would of course mean the obverse die must also be a forgery. The obverse on one coin, nicknamed G2005, is also different from the other obverses but is also is very similar to obverses on genuine coins, supporting the theory that it was struck by a forged die made by a transfer process and touched up by hand engraving.
Is there a viable strike sequence of the coins and of events that explains the changes in the dies and these coins over time? Some people think not, they believe coin G2005 does not fit any viable sequence and therefore must be a forgery.
We have four possibilities for the coin called G2005:
(1) Genuine. Different or re-engraved obverse die. On the reverse, a scratch grew over time and may have become filled later.
(2) Genuine. Different or re-engraved obverse die. On the reverse, a feature of a figure's cloak became filled over time and was possibly cleaned out later.
(3) Genuine. Different or re-engraved obverse die. On the reverse, a scratch grew over time, was re-engraved as a feature of the cloak during a die repair at the Roman mint, and may have become filled later.
(4) Fake. It is a modern forgery. The dies were made using a genuine coin and a transfer process, then touched up by hand.
The differences on the reverses are not at all convincing to me from these photos. The changes in the scratch/cloak feature seem unimportant to me and not any indication of forgery. The obverses differences actually concern me more but are easily explained if they are simply two different dies.
I am not saying all these coins MUST be genuine. There are a few members of this board who, if they condemned the coin, I would accept their condemnation immediately. I am saying the arguments here so far have not convinced me that the G2005 coin MUST be fake.
-
How about a slightly different explanation?
I'm absolutely no expert in this, but I think I have a reasonable explanation for the pictures. If I'm off base, please rip it apart. I'd love to learn.
The basis for my theory is that it's my understanding that as dies are struck and experience wear that they also "mushroom" and expand a bit. See photo of ancient die below demonstrating the "mushroom" effect. (Note the "mushroom effect" is much greater on the end that is struck with the hammer, but the other end displaces and changes shape a bit as well).
So what happens if we re-order the blown up pics of the coins in Numeranius's post above?
Picture 1: die is new. Legend is close to soldier's head. Feature behind soldier is clearly a cloak over his soldier.
Picture 2: die is experiencing wear. Die is expanding. Legend is further away from soldier's head. Rear of cloak is flattening and/or filling in and appears smaller. You're also starting to see some flow lines.
Picture 3: Die is even more worn. Flow lines are clearer. Legend is even further away. Rear of cloak is filling or flattening more and is now interrupted by flow lines.
Picture 4: Die wear continues. Legend even away from soldier further due to continued expansion. Flow lines even clearer. Rear of cloak even lower, looks like a scratch. Due to die expansion, arm is narrower as engraved part of die is shallower.
Yes? No? Maybe?
-
Idea is nice, but i doubt, what this coin struck from fresh die.
-
I also think that the idea of the die evolution is interesting and merits to be explore thoroughly.
Though I also do not think that it is the fresh die.
To check the hypothesis one can try to put in order these guys.
-
If we accept the idea that dies distort with use, then doesn't that really answer the question?
If someone is making high quality cast copies of an original coin, then the "twins" will be identical won't thye?
Struck coins, however, will vary with wear.
-
If there is any merit to this idea then you should be able to put the coins in the same chronological order regardless of what small area you look at. And if one coin is fake, it will be the one coin will not fit in the same order each time.
Or, the different areas will appear to be in different orders and all this is random variation in metal flow, lighting, camera angles, etc. and completely unimportant.
-
If there is any merit to this idea then you should be able to put the coins in the same chronological order regardless of what small area you look at. And if one coin is fake, it will be the one coin will not fit in the same order each time.
Or, the different areas will appear to be in different orders and all this is random variation in metal flow, lighting, camera angles, etc. and completely unimportant.
Or some combination of the two.
I found a site that has published die link studies of Traianus Decius Double Sesterces and Consecration Antoniniani of the Mid Third Century A.D (and describes the cultivation of carnivorous plants).
http://qblay.com/
I've posted a collage of supposedly identical reverses below from one of the coins below. Here's the link to that: http://qblay.com/DeciusDS/show-links.htm
The Sesterces are easier to see. Here's the die link report:
http://qblay.com/DeciusDS/index.html
Here are the links for a specific coin.
http://qblay.com/DiviSeries/English/busca-links.php?CoinName=87-002
In looking at all these, I see variations. Some of them are similar to the variations described in this thread. Based on that, I think that you can't conclude that the aurei that are the subject of this thread are fakes based on the pics posted by Numerianus. I don't know if the differences are based on die distortion, photographic distortion, lighting distortion or some combination of the above. But it certainly seems to suggest that you will see differences in coins struck from the same dies.
-
So, where in this "line" a place for this coin?
-
In my view, looking at this particular last image when making it larger, it is clearly smoothed on the right side of the coin on both obverse and reverse. This looks like image manipulation?
s.
jyrki muona
-
If we accept the idea that dies distort with use, then doesn't that really answer the question?
If someone is making high quality cast copies of an original coin, then the "twins" will be identical won't thye?
Struck coins, however, will vary with wear.
To my mind, the comparison of 6 images of the king shows that the 4th coin (G2005) cannot be struck from the eariest state
of the die because we can see only a part of the fold. More likely it was "enhanced" by someone who, probably, was not aware that
there are coins on which the whole lenth of the fold is visible.
I think that what we see is consistent with the fabrication of copy of the die using a photo- or termohardening plastic, seemingly used
by dentists. I do not know how good it can be but I hold in hand such a die.
Last month one of the members of our local numismatic club shown a plastic die made
someone in Nancy in his presence in a few minutes from a medal, just to show how efficient is the procedure.
People were frightened... I am sure that where are Forum memebers who know much more about this.
-
I'm absolutely agree with Joe
due a board have some PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS, we must to wait, when they are give his opinions about this story. Another, a problem will be "freezed"...
I'm understand, what expert's opinion must to be well cosidered, and can't be fast, but finally they are must to publish this.
-
Well, now the experts have a material to think and exercise their skill. i can provide a high resolution photos of one of this coins believed to be genuine.
Please, tell us whether this is a typical picture one can see looking at the surface of an aureus in a highg grade of conservation or you can see something unusual.
I address to Curtis and Barry who, seemingly, has a vast experience with aurei.
-
The stock still last! One more "standard" C.158 FDC to compare with G2005. The coin is now on sixbid.