FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board

Resources => Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers => Topic started by: Dino on November 23, 2010, 03:58:10 pm

Title: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Dino on November 23, 2010, 03:58:10 pm
Someone in another thread asked if a particular coin might be a fouree or a suberatus. 

I'd like to explore the definitions a bit just to make sure I understand the differences.

As I understand it a suberatus is a copper-cored coin covered with a layer of silver foil.

A fouree is any fake coin purporting to be silver, but with a core of base metal.  It can be covered with a layer of siilver foil or have a surface enriched by a wash to make it appear to be silver.  I presume there are other ways to create them as well.

Am I missing the boat?  Am I missing any nuances?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Galaxy on November 23, 2010, 04:03:33 pm
I had always understood the two terms to be entirely interchangeable. Subaerat seems to be more commonly used in Europe, at least outside of France.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: areich on November 23, 2010, 05:13:42 pm
That's how I understand it as well. Subaeratus (or plated) is for those who cannot remember how to spell fourré(sp?).
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Syltorian on November 23, 2010, 05:48:51 pm
Subaeratus is Latin for "bronze/copper underneath", and would have been the/a Roman way of calling this type of coin. The word is used by Persius in his Satire 5 ("nequa subaerato mendosum tinniat auro"), so in this instance used for gold, not silver. I don't think it really mattered how you hid the core, just that it was beneath the layer of precious metal - as opposed to counterfeits made by adulterated metal.

I have encountered "subaerat", without the Latin -us ending exclusively in German so far, where I haven't come across "fourré" yet, but that may be lack of experience.

Fourré (or fourrée in the feminine form) is French for "stuffed" ("crammed" or "filled"): the silver/gold coin is stuffed with a baser metal. Fourré seems to be more frequent in France, obviously, and in English-speaking countries. Again, this latter comment is based on personal experience, and may thus be unreliable.

In conclusion, I would hold both to mean the same thing. Gold/Silver above, baser metal within.

The usage depends perhaps on which language you are writing in, and, in languages besides French and Latin, whether you'd rather borrow a word from the French or from the Romans, or use a homegrown one - ("plated", perhaps, for the English speakers. Unless that means something different again).

Edit: of course, we can always through the Greek hypochalkos (like subaeratus, literally eaning "copper underneath") into the mix.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: casata137ec on November 23, 2010, 06:43:18 pm
I may be totally off my rocker, but isnt there a name like Subaeratus for "fourees" with an iron core? I seem to remember either reading a thread here on FORVM (could have been a year or two ago...or not) or possibly an article going in to this...

Chris
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Pscipio on November 24, 2010, 12:49:46 am
You probably mean subferratus, from "ferrum" = Iron.

Lars
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: commodus on November 24, 2010, 01:49:21 am
To me, the term "fourrée" implies unofficial, while subaeratae can be either unofficial or, as in the case of many later imperial coins with silver washes, official.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: areich on November 24, 2010, 03:49:48 am
I've never seen subaeratus used for silvered coins, always just for silver-plated ones.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Andrew McCabe on November 24, 2010, 04:50:41 am
That's how I understand it as well. Subaeratus (or plated) is for those who cannot remember how to spell fourré(sp?).

"Plated" is even easier to spell and involves fewer fancy foreign words!
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Galaxy on November 24, 2010, 09:18:50 am
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Maffeo on November 24, 2010, 09:38:34 am
'fourèe' is French for the Latin 'suberatus'. The meaning is identical: a base metal ancient fake plated in precious metal, either silver or gold.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: dltcoins on November 24, 2010, 09:55:03 am
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)

or 'Constantinopolis'...  ;D
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Maffeo on November 24, 2010, 10:00:55 am
There's nothing foreign about Latin when you're talking about Roman coins! How many of us refer to 'Constantinople' rather than 'Istanbul'? ;)

or 'Constantinopolis'...  ;D

I call it Byzantium myself, but then I'm just an old fogie.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: dougsmit on November 24, 2010, 10:06:53 am
I am 100% in agreement with the use of the two term interchangably.  I offer as the basis for my opinion page one of William Campbell's Greek and Roman Plated Coins where he refers to his subject as "the probable method or methods of silver plating as exemplified in ancient coins - the fourree or subaerati pieces."  For no better reason I spell the word with two R's and two E's just like he did but I'm too lazy to trick my keyboard into accenting the first E so I don't bother with that.    I really enjoyed Campbell's book and recommend it to all!

The book concerns itself with what I call the silver foil method fourrees or, again, what I would call plated pieces rather than the late Roman washed items.  Neither word has any relationship to whether or not the coins were made officially or not but refers only to the fact that there is a better covering intentionally placed over a more base core.   For the purpose of naming it makes no difference who made the things but only how they made them.  I also disallow the term being applied to coins which were 'pickled' in acid to surface enrich the flans before striking.  To be plated, there needed to be a sandwich of dissimilar metals.  

A term for the iron core things probably is not common because the coins made and surviving are so rare.  I have seen a couple as opposed to thousands of fourrees.  

Finally, I'll mention that I am unreasonable enough that I irrationally discount the opinions of people who use the term fourree to refer to fakes of other styles.  Fourrees may be fake (or 99% may be fake - your choice) but not all fakes are fourrees.  Using the term in this manner strikes me as a sign of not having done the basic study necessary to understand the question.   Call it a pet peeve.

I'll also mention that recent years have really seen an increase in the market price of plated denarii.  When I developed an interest in them, common ones were worth less than ordinary late Romans in unsectacular condition.  Only rare types sold well.  When we started seeing a lot of the so-called 'Limes' denarii (not produced by the foil method but another topic altogether) there seemed to be a great increase in dealers willing to sell the things to beginners without full explanation and a subsequent increase in collectors that thought it was normal to find denarii made of copper.   We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.  
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: commodus on November 24, 2010, 01:05:40 pm
I'm too lazy to trick my keyboard into accenting the first E so I don't bother with that.  

To type é, press down the Alt key and while holding it down type 130 on the number keypad on the far right-hand side of your keyboard.

I also prefer the fourrée spelling with two Rs and two Es, not that it matters really.

As to subaeratae (or subaerati, if you prefer), the word literally means "bronze underneath," so I think it could correctly be used for any sort of silver plated, washed, or sandwiched coin with bronze at the core, unofficial or official. In any event, I seldom use the term. "Fourrée" works just fine for me for the silver plated counterfeits and imitatives and "silver washed" works fine for the later official ones.

I'll also mention that recent years have really seen an increase in the market price of plated denarii.  When I developed an interest in them, common ones were worth less than ordinary late Romans in unsectacular condition.  Only rare types sold well.  When we started seeing a lot of the so-called 'Limes' denarii (not produced by the foil method but another topic altogether) there seemed to be a great increase in dealers willing to sell the things to beginners without full explanation and a subsequent increase in collectors that thought it was normal to find denarii made of copper.   We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.   

I'll second that!
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: dougsmit on November 24, 2010, 11:20:28 pm
"Fourrée" works just fine for me for the silver plated counterfeits and imitative and "silver washed" works fine for the later official ones.

The problem is that when we all have our own personal definitions, communications breaks down.  We differ in that I allow for fourree coins that are not counterfeit and silver washed ones that are.   Perhaps 'plated' is a better term since so many people now seem to accept fourree as a synonym of fake without understanding that all fakes are not plated.   I have previously used it instead of 'plated' reserving that term for 'something shown in the plates' (or is it a hold over from stamp collecting days where it means the location of a stamp on a sheet?). 

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'  Lewis Carroll
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Daniel Stewart on November 24, 2010, 11:37:43 pm
  We now need someone to do a proper study on the entire subject of unofficial and counterfeit ancient coins (solid, barbarous, deceptive, local use and probably a dozen other permutations on the coins not being 'quite right').  There are simply too many of the things to justify the old answer of writing them off as beneath our interest.  

I also would very much like to see such a study. William Campbell's book which Doug Smith mentions is excellent but is almost 80 years old and largely concerned with the technology of manufacturing fourees. A definitive discussion of the chronology, manufacture, distribution and economics of fourees would be fascinating. If it included material on limes and barbarous coins, that would be a bonus.
There are, I guess, a number of factors that would make such a study difficult. If records of official Roman mints are scarce, what hope is there for information about illegal ones. Also, my impression (although I don't know) is that no museum has systematically collected fourees on the same scale as official coins so there isn't the same physical basis for scholarship.

Still these coins are very interesting and, although I hesitate to contradict Doug Smith whose website has been so valuable to me, they are still inexpensive--I just received a batch of 16 limes and fourees from FORVM for which I paid $90, less than $6 a coin! Some are not in great shape but others approach VF. They are mostly Severans and that is the basis of an interesting question--is the widespead availability of Severan fourees a reflection of the influx of coins from the Balkans or were relatively more fourees manufactured during that period and why?

Perhaps it would be a useful start to create a sticky thread where people with interesting fourees could post photographs.

Dan
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Maffeo on November 27, 2010, 06:10:34 am
I agree, of course, that fourrèe or suberatus is not the equivalent of ancient fake, for many ancient fakes were not fourèe.
But, perhaps, fourrèe is the equivalent of ancient plated fake.
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?

Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Syltorian on November 27, 2010, 06:41:34 am
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?

As regards "official fourrés", this topic has been discussed here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67128.0 (and follow the link to Andrew McCabe's site), and touched upon here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67047.0 There is no real consensus on this topic either on this board or in the numismatic or academic world in general, but the articles posted by Andrew clearly tend towards eliminating any evidence for "official fourrés".   

Considering the ancient sources and their worries about plated coins, it does not make sense to me that a plated coin could somehow be "not fake" (even accepting for a moment the idea that some plating was ordered by the mint officials themselves, in Rome or elsewhere, the actual users of the coin would not consider it official).

Even the barbarians (at least some) cared: Tacitus quite clearly mentions that the Germans preferred serrati and bigati for their purer silver. They appear to have known about adulteration and plating.

Still, there were unofficial (barbarous) plated coins. There's an example in my gallery. It's even serrate, so it might have fooled those German tribes, too.  ;) I still doubt even the Dacians or "eastern Celts" would have accepted it as the real thing once the core became visible.
Link: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=3327&pos=0
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Reid Goldsborough on November 27, 2010, 11:06:50 am
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees (http://rg.ancients.info/fourees/)

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: dougsmit on November 28, 2010, 12:25:09 am
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees (http://rg.ancients.info/fourees/)

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.

Excellent overview.

Question:  Can anyone offer an example of a coin type that is unknown solid but exists fourree?
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Andrew McCabe on November 28, 2010, 05:18:43 am
After all, it there any evidence that some ancient plateds were official?
Or can one talk of ancient plateds that were unofficial but not fake?
The problem then (for me at least) is to make sense of plateds recognized as unofficial but not considered fakes - local or barbarous imitatives perhaps?

As regards "official fourrés", this topic has been discussed here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67128.0 (and follow the link to Andrew McCabe's site), and touched upon here: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=67047.0 There is no real consensus on this topic either on this board or in the numismatic or academic world in general, but the articles posted by Andrew clearly tend towards eliminating any evidence for "official fourrés".   



There is no consensus only amongst amateurs, but amateurs deal in opinions rather than in academic proofs - if you think your views are strong enough and you have evidence to back it then write an academic article and join the academics! But please, read the existing body of academic evidence first, as documented on my web-page: (NB this only covers Roman Republican coins and make no claim for Greek or Roman Imperial issues): Some of you may not like the confident tone in which parts of it are written - the words are not mine but those of the various academics who wrote the material - but read deep into the footnotes and make up your minds on the material presented rather than on instinct.
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Plated.html 

There is an almost universal consensus among academics that plated (Roman Republican) coins are almost all forgeries (and a few may have been struck with purloined dies, or at military mints under times of difficulty). There are a few who doubt, but their doubts have not been robustly laid out nor widely accepted, and as I understand it what doubts there are relate to a small proportion plated coins having been struck with official dies but that may be simply evidence of malpractice and not in any way indicating official sanction. For the academic consensus and its underlying evidence see my page.

Michael Crawford wrote to me again yesterday, having looked at the web-page. He seemed extremely pleased at how the information had been presented, in fact describing the page as "extraordinary and magnificent". That's good enough for me, but many other Forum participants gave me a great deal of help in assembling the evidence, so his thanks are to be shared.

Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Andrew McCabe on November 28, 2010, 05:25:41 am
Everything you always wanted to know (well, not quite):

http://rg.ancients.info/fourees (http://rg.ancients.info/fourees/)

As always suggestions for additions or corrections welcomed.

Excellent overview.

Question:  Can anyone offer an example of a coin type that is unknown solid but exists fourree?

Reid's page is an excellent short summary and I'm going to link to it.

On Doug's question I assume it is not directed at hybrids of normal types (of which vast quantities are known) or barbaric garbled types (similarly, vast quantities known), nor at slightly confused types intended to be as real (such as listed here: http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Plated.html#ListRRC ) but at a completely new coin type of an otherwise unknown moneyer in good style? I can't think of any ..
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: mwilson603 on November 28, 2010, 02:39:30 pm
There is no consensus only amongst amateurs, but amateurs deal in opinions rather than in academic proofs - if you think your views are strong enough and you have evidence to back it then write an academic article and join the academics!

So that's it then.  Unless you are deemed to be an academic, you had better avoid having an opinion as it couldn't possibly be right.  Only an academic can possibly have a correct opinion.  ;)

Whilst it's good to know that the subject of fourrees as described by Mr McCabe, has been dealt with using academic proof, academic proof deals with the balance of probabilities.  We have to remember that whilst that can be the right approach, that doesn't always mean that the results are right.  Frequently, published academic works are not correct.  Not so many years ago it was academically proven that Darwin was wrong when he proposed evolution.  How ridiculous it must have seemed when Copernicus proposed that the sun did not indeed orbit the earth, as Geocentrism had already been academically proved by Plato, Aristotle etc.  More recently, it was academically proven that the Piltdown man was really the missing link. 

I will leave you to your own opinions, academics and non-academics alike. :)

regards

Mark

Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: commodus on November 28, 2010, 05:57:32 pm
I am curious now. As a historian who has authored a number of academic papers in my field, though none in the area of ancient numismatics (I have authored several academic papers on modern numismatic subjects), would I, for purposes of this argument, be considered an amateur or an academic? It is a vague line, no? I would hardly consider myself an amateur numismatist, but I am not a "professional" one, either. A professional would, to be bluntly honest, be a dealer who makes his living specifically in the field of numismatics. As a historian, I try to apply the same standards and criteria to my study of ancient coins that I do to other areas of historical scholarship. Indeed, I collect ancient coins because of their history. Again, however, I have not published on the subject. In my opinion, both as a member of the academic community and as a collector, it is not whether one holds a particular degree or what one has published that makes one an expert, but rather the extent of one's experience, knowledge, and expertise in a particular field. Therein lies the difference between an educated opinion and a baseless whim, not in what one has or hasn't published or what degrees one does or doesn't hold.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Andrew McCabe on November 28, 2010, 06:35:14 pm
I am curious now. As a historian who has authored a number of academic papers in my field, though none in the area of ancient numismatics (I have authored several academic papers on modern numismatic subjects), would I, for purposes of this argument, be considered an amateur or an academic? It is a vague line, no? I would hardly consider myself an amateur numismatist, but I am not a "professional" one, either. A professional would, to be bluntly honest, be a dealer who makes his living specifically in the field of numismatics. As a historian, I try to apply the same standards and criteria to my study of ancient coins that I do to other areas of historical scholarship. Indeed, I collect ancient coins because of their history. Again, however, I have not published on the subject. In my opinion, both as a member of the academic community and as a collector, it is not whether one holds a particular degree or what one has published that makes one an expert, but rather the extent of one's experience, knowledge, and expertise in a particular field. Therein lies the difference between an educated opinion and a baseless whim, not in what one has or hasn't published or what degrees one does or doesn't hold.

If you write and publish (even on a website) in a manner citing sources, laying out the evidence, testing contrary positions, reflecting the views of past experts, you are in my mind an academic (though that's a personal view). It doesn't matter the venue, subject or personal qualifications of the writer, so long as you are following "scientific method": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

So you are certainly an academic in my mind, as are very many on this board.

If one airs opinions without citing robust evidence and past established opinions - or without testing contrary possibilities with open eyes - in the course of casual chatting online, that that's fine to the extent that it is enjoyable, and the chatting can help tease out the truth from others. But it doesn't amount to serious research.

Does the difference matter? (and also in answer to Mark Wilson's earlier comment). Yes I think it does. It's fun to chat and debate and air opinions. After all this Forum is supposed to be for enjoyment. But it's best not to confuse chatting and casual debate - even to the extent of light provocation and adopting enjoyable positions for devil's advocate sake or in order to provoke a fun-filled chat - with serious research.

In much of what I write personally - even on my website - I am just a casual chatter. The article I wrote recently on art, architecture and coins of Campania http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Italy.html#Campania was very much an amateur chat, which I did completely for fun and involving research that didn't get beyond the front page of Google search results. I approached the plated coins issue from a more scientific angle...

We live in a dumbed-down world, where tweeted off-the-cuff opinions get more attention than the serious written word. Twitter, facebook and our older chat forums are great socialising tools that add colour but shouldn't replace real work. That's my opinion anyway. I'm a bit old-fashioned that way. Sometimes I wish I lived in Victorian times; the Victorians placed value on serious stuff.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Reid Goldsborough on November 28, 2010, 07:09:47 pm
It is not whether one holds a particular degree or what one has published that makes one an expert, but rather the extent of one's experience, knowledge, and expertise in a particular field. Therein lies the difference between an educated opinion and a baseless whim, not in what one has or hasn't published or what degrees one does or doesn't hold.

For the sake of debate, and without intending any disrespect for your expertise, I'd contend that just as one's formal credentials (academic degree, etc.) are secondary, so is what you pointed out, your experience, knowledge, and expertise in the particular field. This is not to say that none of this is important, including having a degree, which is one way of establishing credibility.

What I would say is paramount, more important than any of this, is the rigor with which you approach whatever subject you're writing about. Have you examined the most important work and the conclusions of others, to see what evidence they used as a basis for their conclusions? Have you yourself looked at all the most relevant evidence you could find, and if possible have you uncovered any new evidence that others may not have? Have you based your conclusions on logic and the appropriate degree of skepticism, or have you jumped to conclusions based on unsupported or dubious extrapolations?

All this has practical considerations. There are numismatic books out there, recent books, written by dealers with impeccable experience and impressive reputations that are rife with errors because the author didn't do his homework, didn't look at the work of others and analyze the evidence they analyzed, instead proposing bold new knowledge when in reality such knowledge had been refuted long before.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: ickster on November 28, 2010, 10:08:47 pm
 
Perhaps it would be a useful start to create a sticky thread where people with interesting fourees could post photographs.

Dan


Great idea!
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: commodus on November 29, 2010, 01:47:41 am
Reid, I'm unclear if you're using a general "you" or if your "you" refers to me in particular. If the latter, the answer depends upon the topic being discussed. As with everyone here, an opinion I may express on some topics will be a great deal more knowledgeable than it might be on another.
I'll freely admit I have no expertise when it comes to fourrées, for example. Not so with many other subjects, however, such as modern fakes, or the relationships of Roman coins to Roman history.
I think this is the case with most of us: we have our areas of particular focus and experience, but that doesn't mean we hold no opinions about other subjects into which we have delved less deeply.
This forum is about the free exchange of ideas, much as in the classroom or lecture group, the difference being that there is no leader: everyone who wishes to has a place at the table and, though some will necessarily be better informed on this or that topic than someone else, and vice-versa, there isn't a place for academic snobbery in the discussion. We are all here for the same reason: a passion for ancient coins and, within the scope of freely discussing that passion, we learn from each other and teach each other and, hopefully, all benefit from the discourse.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Hydatius on November 29, 2010, 09:23:00 am
I am curious now. As a historian who has authored a number of academic papers in my field, though none in the area of ancient numismatics (I have authored several academic papers on modern numismatic subjects), would I, for purposes of this argument, be considered an amateur or an academic? It is a vague line, no? I would hardly consider myself an amateur numismatist, but I am not a "professional" one, either. A professional would, to be bluntly honest, be a dealer who makes his living specifically in the field of numismatics. As a historian, I try to apply the same standards and criteria to my study of ancient coins that I do to other areas of historical scholarship. Indeed, I collect ancient coins because of their history. Again, however, I have not published on the subject. In my opinion, both as a member of the academic community and as a collector, it is not whether one holds a particular degree or what one has published that makes one an expert, but rather the extent of one's experience, knowledge, and expertise in a particular field. Therein lies the difference between an educated opinion and a baseless whim, not in what one has or hasn't published or what degrees one does or doesn't hold.

I would agree with that. I have a doctorate from Oxford, I'm a professor, and I have published on ancient numismatics, but I have seen absolutely "professional" work from supposed "amateurs" who hold no degrees and have published nothing in an academic journal (say Journal of Roman Studies or Numismatic Chronicle). What makes the differences is (1) experience, (2) access to sources, both the coins (in hand or in photos) and the extant literature, (3) a concern for honesty and the truth, above your own ego or pride,  which forces you to follow the evidence wherever it takes you regardless of the whether it confirms your own (public or private) hypotheses or not, and (4) an ability to organize and write well, so that others can understand and learn from your research. I think that's it, but if I've forgotten something someone will add it.

Richard
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Reid Goldsborough on November 29, 2010, 09:38:23 am
This forum is about the free exchange of ideas, much as in the classroom or lecture group, the difference being that there is no leader: everyone who wishes to has a place at the table and, though some will necessarily be better informed on this or that topic than someone else, and vice-versa, there isn't a place for academic snobbery in the discussion.

I agree with this completely! This wasn't what I was referring to, however. I was commenting on what I regard as, for lack of a better term, a hierarchy of confidence in the correctness of information, though I was really just touching on this.

Of course, people who post here, as you point out, are mostly engaged in informal discussion. No need to reference every statement of fact with a footnote. <g>

But with information in general, the criteria people cited -- academic credentials and experience/expertise -- are important, more or less, depending in large part, getting back to your point, on the outlet where the information is published. But most important, I'd say, no matter where published, is the rigor and thoroughness with which you do your research.

All this is relative, more or less. A non-academic expert who knows more about a certain topic than anyone in the world wouldn't be able to be published in some journals. A Ph.D. without any experience in a certain topic who did encyclopedic research might miss important issues or nuances because of his inexperience in that subject, despite his academic credentials and hard work.

But online, in these discussions, people should feel free to share information and opinions, I agree. It's always helpful, though, when people qualify what they say (as you did!) by pointing to whatever background, experience, and so on that they have on what they're commenting on.

At the opposite extreme, you have "Internet expertiseism," nonexperts who pose as experts online, a common enough phenomenon. It's clear what the psychology and dynamics are behind this. Joe addresses this here, regarding authentication, in the Fake Ancient Coin Reports and Discussion board with his directive, "IF YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO GIVE ADVICE - DON'T." This is blunt language, but I think it speaks to what we've all seen plenty of times, a useful counterbalance.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Robert_Brenchley on November 29, 2010, 12:49:37 pm
It's partly knowledge of the evidence, and partly the ability to go with it, in the face of the established hypothesis if necessary. Piltdown man was a classic; the 'fossil' confirmed the established hypothesis, that the big brain came first, and other human characteristics afterwards. When the first Australopithecus fossils came along in the 1920's, it made it a lot easier to ignore the awkward contrary, but genuine, evidence and stay in the box. Academics are just as frail as anyone else!
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Andrew McCabe on November 29, 2010, 04:22:53 pm
I have seen absolutely "professional" work from supposed "amateurs" who hold no degrees and have published nothing in an academic journal (say Journal of Roman Studies or Numismatic Chronicle). What makes the differences is (1) experience, (2) access to sources, both the coins (in hand or in photos) and the extant literature, (3) a concern for honesty and the truth, above your own ego or pride,  which forces you to follow the evidence wherever it takes you regardless of the whether it confirms your own (public or private) hypotheses or not, and (4) an ability to organize and write well, so that others can understand and learn from your research.

It's partly knowledge of the evidence, and partly the ability to go with it, in the face of the established hypothesis if necessary. Piltdown man was a classic; the 'fossil' confirmed the established hypothesis, that the big brain came first, and other human characteristics afterwards. When the first Australopithecus fossils came along in the 1920's, it made it a lot easier to ignore the awkward contrary, but genuine, evidence and stay in the box. Academics are just as frail as anyone else!

What I would say is paramount, more important than any of this, is the rigor with which you approach whatever subject you're writing about. Have you examined the most important work and the conclusions of others, to see what evidence they used as a basis for their conclusions? Have you yourself looked at all the most relevant evidence you could find, and if possible have you uncovered any new evidence that others may not have? Have you based your conclusions on logic and the appropriate degree of skepticism, or have you jumped to conclusions based on unsupported or dubious extrapolations?

...As with everyone here, an opinion I may express on some topics will be a great deal more knowledgeable than it might be on another. .. We are all here for the same reason: a passion for ancient coins and, within the scope of freely discussing that passion, we learn from each other and teach each other and, hopefully, all benefit from the discourse.

....academic proof deals with the balance of probabilities.  We have to remember that whilst that can be the right approach, that doesn't always mean that the results are right. 

I'm in an odd position of agreeing with just about everything said by everyone in the current discussion (the branch it has taken). Despite the appearance of two sides of a debate, when I read it cold, everyone is saying just about the same thing but in slightly different words!
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Dino on November 29, 2010, 05:06:23 pm
I'm in an odd position of agreeing with just about everything said by everyone in the current discussion (the branch it has taken). Despite the appearance of two sides of a debate, when I read it cold, everyone is saying just about the same thing but in slightly different words![/b]

Kinda like the terms fouree and suberatus.
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: casata137ec on November 30, 2010, 12:24:16 am
I'm in an odd position of agreeing with just about everything said by everyone in the current discussion (the branch it has taken). Despite the appearance of two sides of a debate, when I read it cold, everyone is saying just about the same thing but in slightly different words![/b]

Kinda like the terms fouree and suberatus.

:)
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: Joe Sermarini on December 02, 2010, 03:08:30 pm
Let's stick to coins and not debate the difference between academics and amateurs, please.  It may be an interesting and relevant conversation for someplace else, but here we talk about coins.   

Because, ancient coins include the products of many cultures and many centuries, some "official" fourrees were likely struck (some plated Athenian owl tets, for example, are likely official).  However, almost all plated coins were undoubtedly unofficial forgeries.  I have heard that some Roman fourree seem to have been struck with official dies but I have not seen one and have strong doubts.  I suspect that any Roman fourree found to have been struck with official dies could only have been made by unknowingly overstriking a fourree. 
Title: Re: Fouree vs Suberatus
Post by: jmuona on December 07, 2010, 02:46:32 pm
I will return to terminology because, as someone noted - Doug probably - it is useful to be able to mean approximately the same thing when discussing matters. I draw my experience on "plated coins" from research I have been part of and idle observations I have made...:)
Both debased Roman denarii and tetradrakhms from Alexandria from the time of Otho that I have seen have a fairly thick silvery surface layer. The denarii have been produced by first removing the copper from the core region (heating?) and then striking the coin creating an impression of a full silver product. The Alexandrian coins have a much thicker silvery core and an apparently close to full copper inside and the process may have been slightly different, but they too are made with the same general idea.
Now, I also have several Civil War issues from the year 68 CE with a clearly visible silver foil somehow - hot striking? - united with the coppery main body of the coin.
Later Roman coins seem to exist that may have been placed in acid for a short while after striking, giving them the impression of being good silver - why, I do not know because they cannot have fooled anyone. Perhaps esthetic purposes?
I would like to know how to call these. They are not the same things in principle. Most forgeries belong to the secong category, but I have seen ones made like the first system.
s.
Jyrki Muona