Fake Daric?

[ThatParthianGuy]

I found this while browsing [REMOVED BY ADMIN]. It looks nothing like the other Daric Staters I've seen. It looked way too centered, the incuse had an unusual shape, and the archer on the obverse had a strange design.

[Pekka K]

Fake reports:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-8350

Pekka K

[ThatParthianGuy]

Definitely a fake. Thanks.

[ThatParthianGuy]

What's interesting is that the seller of this fake has a bunch more Darics that all appear to be genuine. This was the only fake I saw.

[Joe Sermarini]

Please inform the seller.

Wow, I thought the dealers of that site were relatively safe...

All dealers are human. All humans make mistakes.

[Andrew McCabe]

It's very concerning that the seller refuses to reply.

Just to lower the temperature a bit, this doesn't concern me at all.

Coin dealers with items up for auction receive countless messages asserting one or another problem with something they are selling. These messages might relate to ownership ("that's my coin!"), might relate to provenance ("I feel certain this was dug up yesterday in Romania!") or might relate to repairs ("it's tooled!") or authenticity. They also get many questions like "I've a similar coin, what's it worth", and "I have some wheat-ear cents from long ago will you buy them from me". Many of these messages are from completely uninformed people, or even cranks. So when a dealer in genuine coins (who believe he is selling only genuine coins) gets a generalised message of concern about just one coin he believes genuine from someone completely unknown to him, and the message is probably anyway filtered by secretarial staff, there's a very high chance that no attention is paid to it. That does NOT mean the dealer is deliberately selling a forgery, in fact it may be his confidence that stops him replying. I'm sure if a collector or expert known personally or academically to the dealer or if a bunch of different unknown people write in, a different response might result.

Some big name dealers read and respond to each message I send them - CNG adjusted the description of a coin yesterday on my recommendation. But they know me, and before they knew me, RBW wrote to CNG and said they should pay attention to my mails. But many dealers, who do not know me personally, don't respond at all to messages I send about mis-described coins. Nowadays, therefore, when writing to a reputable dealer who doesn't yet know me, I include some credentials ("I've written X and am well-known to Y").

Disreputable dealers are another matter of course. But that doesn't seem to be what we are discussing here, rather an apparently reputable dealer who seems to have made a mistake. It may help if others write, or if the original messenger writes again so the seller realises it's a serious comment

[ThatParthianGuy]

This coin was sold by a US dealer based in California that has expertise in this type of coins via the same platform for eshops.

Now that I think about it, I actually met the previous owner of the fake at a convention in New York City. We both specialize in Middle-Eastern coinage, and we had a very pleasant conversation about coins. He was very knowledgeable and had some great pieces on display. I never would have thought that he would have a fake coin.

[Martin B4]

Fake Report submitted
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-19095

[Joe Sermarini]

Thanks Martin.

[paparoupa]

1 year later the coin is still for sale....

[glebe]

Are we sure this is a fake?
After all, this is actually a 1/12 Daric, a very small and very rare coin which might look rather different from the full size and mass produced Daric.
Below is an example from CNG which looks rather similar to me.
It would be nice to see some more "genuine" examples.
And not for the first time I am less than impressed by the BOC report, which as usual tells us little of any use.

Ross G.

[paparoupa]

Are we sure this is a fake?

Below is an example from CNG which looks rather similar to me.

Ross G.

The incuse punch is an indicator for me that it is definitely a fake.

[ThatParthianGuy]

Agreed. The incuse on the fake looks like like it was machine-pressed. It’s too symmetrical and centered. The CNG example shows the typical unevenness of the incuse. I’m seriously disappointed the coin is still for sale. Would it help at all to contact the seller again?

[Joe Sermarini]

I believe it is fake because it is a match to a coin published in the IAPN BOC Vol 19, No. 1 in 1994.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-8350

[glebe]

I found their argument less than compelling.

Ross G.

[paparoupa]

The incuse punch looks like it's made with play-doh. That's enough for me

[Joe Sermarini]

I found their argument less than compelling.

Ross G.

IAPN does not share details. We do not know their argument.

[glebe]

Their argument is "Too angular, too sharp."
In other words they don't like this coin because it's too nice a specimen.

Ross G.

[glebe]

More specifically, they say, in BOC 1993 (rather than BOC 1994 quoted earlier): "this is too angular, too sharp and the reverse quite uncharacteristic".

And the same for this coin, BOC 1993 10a (see below):

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pos=3

which has the same obverse die as the BOC 10c example (or something very close to it), and the CNG coin, but a different and rather odd reverse from the latter.

Sounds a bit more more convincing, but if you excluded all "uncharacteristic reverses" you'ld have to dump lot of darics and sigloi.

Also, if these were (modern) fakes they would surely have used the "characteristic" punch from the CNG coin on the BOC 10a example as well, not the very odd punch that we actually see. (We have no reverse for 10c).

I'm open to more evidence, but right now I can't condemn any of these coins with any sort of confidence (particularly since 10c is rather confusingly classed as genuine in BOC 1994).

Ross G.

I hope I've got all those references right, otherwise there will be total confusion.

[Joe Sermarini]

Although it is impossible for me to explain, the style of the obverses of 10a and 10b (in addition to the reverse punches) seem off to me. The obverses of 10c and 10d appear more normal. This is not a condemnation. It is only an impression. To be clear, I also cannot condemn the coins myself, but I accept the BOC condemnation until presented with a more convincing expert opinion.

I am under the impression that there is some discussion of the coins by the IAPN before they are condemned and that the discussion is not fully revealed in the BOC.

Inexplicable mistakes by forgers are frequent and often combined with other aspects that are quite impressive. I don't think we can assume modern fake makers would certainly have used a more correct punch.

[ThatParthianGuy]

Although it is impossible for me to explain, the style of the obverses of 10a and 10b (in addition to the reverse punches) seem off to me. The obverses of 10c and 10d appear more normal. This is not a condemnation. It is only an impression. To be clear, I also cannot condemn the coins myself, but I accept the BOC condemnation until presented with a more convincing expert opinion.

I concur. The obverses of 10a and 10b appear to be somewhat based off (at least to me) the obverse of 10c. I think the forger most likely used 10c as a reference. Reiterating what I said about the incuse, it's very uncharacteristic of Achaemenid coins. Also note that 10a has a similar overly symmetrical incuse. 10d exhibits the normal, bumpy rectangular incuse.