FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
-
Now for sale on ebay, your opinium please.
-
Good,IMO
-
Of course one has to start somewhere, but seller has 0 transaction, and all bids are private. No need to even see the bad picture to get alarmed
Red flag + rings bells : CAUTION
-
All you are seeing is a picture of a coin. There is no guarantee that, even if the coin was genuine, the seller actually has the actual coin to sell. A picture does not prove ownership.
To be clear, anyone owning a genuine coin like this would normally sell it through a reputable auction house or consign it to a dealer for sale.
I completely agree with Potator II, I am being deafened by the warning bells on this one.
Regards,
Alex.
Good,IMO
Then why don't you go for it? :tongue: ::) ;D
-
One more bell:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-6034
Pekka K
-
Not to pile on, but it's also a 1-day auction.
Tread with caution!
mz
-
One more bell:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-6034
Not just any bell: a funeral bell. It's 100% fake.
Richard
-
What about this one
-
Not sure how the one coin got in the Fake report as a Slavey as it's clearly not a Slavey. Not really close to Slavey style.
These dies have been known for a long time so clearly aren't new Bulgarian dies. In fact there is an example in Mazzini from the same obverse die and a different reverse die.
That being said I'm, not convinced the coin that started this thread is authentic. The luster doesn't look right and the fields of the coin look unusually flat. I'd like to see a better photo that is properly lit and larger. So it could be a cast but it's not made from modern dies and not a Slavey forgery.
Barry Murphy
-
The " slavey" and the eBay coin together.
The V in Carinvs looks quite different.
-
That is probably due to the lighting. They look like a match to me.
-
Here's something interesting:
Another one (found on acsearch.info) sold in 2005 for $8704.
mz
EDIT: Same one as benito posted. mz
The eBay coin sold for US $1,375.99
-
Here's something interesting:
Another one (found on acsearch.info) sold in 2005 for $8704.
mz
EDIT: Same one as benito posted. mz
The eBay coin sold for US $1,375.99
The host, perhaps? Or a (genuine) die match to the host?
-
The obverse is not the same IMO.
-
Hi,
another specimen with the same obverse was sold in 2008 and is to be found on acsearch. This coin is the Mazzini plate coin which bpmurphy is referring to. It has a provenance dating back to 1958.
The ebay coin does not look cast on the pictures. Given the flatness and the appearance also noted by bpmurphy I think that it has been struck from transfer dies. It just has this type of dullness and brightness at the same time I have seen on dangerous fakes of byzantine solidi struck from dies.
byzcoll
-
But it must be real, it has a lifetime guarantee in the listing.
-
A similar aureus, perhaps it maybe the host, was sold by NAC AG, auction 54 on march 24 2010.
Calicó 4351 (this obverse die). The winning bid was 45717 USD.
Ex Rollin & Feuardent, 25 April1887, Vicomte Ponton d’Amécourt 589; Sotheby’s 10 November 1972, Metropolitan part I, 208 and NAC 21, 2001, 549 sales.
-
A similar aureus, perhaps it maybe the host, was sold by NAC AG, auction 54 on march 24 2010.
Calicó 4351 (this obverse die). The winning bid was 45717 USD.
Ex Rollin & Feuardent, 25 April1887, Vicomte Ponton d’Amécourt 589; Sotheby’s 10 November 1972, Metropolitan part I, 208 and NAC 21, 2001, 549 sales.
The eBay coin (if fake) has two hosts. One for the obverse and one for the reverse.
-
some time ago. held in my hand. Karin authentic. shows signs of turning. like this picture, I see the same traces
-
The coin in the fake reports is not a Slavey, that we can say for certain. Can we say for certain that it is fake? On what basis was that report made? I'm not altogether persuaded that all these coins are exact die matches (both sides), let alone fakes.
-
The fake report was submitted by Dr. Prokopov so we would have to ask him.
Regards,
Martin
-
I should have checked first to see who submitted the report. If Dr. Prokopov says it is fake he'd have a valid reason and would know what he's talking about; so I think here's no doubt that at least that one is fake, then. I'm curious to know more about it, though, and the reasons for the Slavey attribution.