Alexander III fakes die links

[Din X]

They are published and they share the same reverse die + the style is pathetic and ridiculous but auction houses did not care and even wrote "Good style" or ".The engraver of this reverse die mistakenly left off the “P” portion of the monogram for this issue."
That really made my day ^^

[Din X]

missing pictures

[Brennos]

Very good job again 

[Din X]

found more + pictures of the published dies

[Din X]

A new Obverse die appeared at auction together with another of this fakes.

The problem here is that 4 obverse dies exist together with the same reverse die + another reverse die from another mint. And two of this combinations are already published.

[Joe Sermarini]

Fake coin reports please, if not already complete.

[djmacdo]

Thank you--you have a good eye and do a service for all of us.

[Din X]

Both fakes from my previous post have been withdrawn (zurückgezogen) by auction house.
I have found 1 new reverse die and 1 new obverse die

[Din X]

I have checked the dies again and they are all modern dies.
I have found an authentic specimen in Paris which this fake obverse die is trying to imitate.
The hair on the authentic Paris coin is much more detailed, for example the hair consists on the fakes always of 3 hair wisps on the authentic coin their number is always higher and different.
Made an arrow where on the authentic coin are 5 hair wisps and on the fakes 3.
The obverse die of this fakes is a die match to IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.12 1980 Page 2 Fig 8.

[glebe]

So why exactly is the missing P monogram type a fake?
Is it only because this variant is apparently new to the market?

Ross G.

[Din X]

So why exactly is the missing P monogram type a fake?
Is it only because this variant is apparently new to the market?

Ross G.

On these fakes is soooo much wrong more obvious fakes are hardly found.

If a coin is die linked to an obverse or reverse die from modern dies than it have to be fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is here the case, the A monogram reverse die is linked to 2 BOC published obverse dies which are modern dies.

An authentic ancient coin can not share the same obverse or reverse die with fakes from modern dies made 2000+ years later.

IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 2 Fig 8

IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 3 Fig 10

http://alexanderthegreatcoins.reidgold.com/modern_forgeries2.html

Reid Goldsborough identified one of these with missing P monogram as     

"Lebanese School" forgery No. 1 of an Alexander III tetradrachm. Bulletin on Counterfeits, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1986), p. 8 (that specimen weighed 17.0g), Bulletin on Counterfeits, Vol. 5, No. 1/2 (1980), no's 8 and 9. Two specimens I've examined in person weighs 15.7g and 13.6g.

Maybe because they are all fakes made with modern dies (two die combinations published in BOC).
Maybe because the style is not ancient and too crude, especially the hair on obverse and Zeus on the reverse.
Maybe because fakes from these dies are not longer known than perhaps 60 years.
Maybe because these fakes are die linked together and too many die links exist and too many involved different mints.
Maybe because some of these fakes are clearly pressed.


Found a new combination

Picture 3

Obverse die is from IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 2 Fig 8

Reverse die is from IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 3 Fig 10


The obverse die from Obverse die is from IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 2 Fig 8

exist with at least 4 different reverse dies from different times, rulers and mints.

Picture 5

[glebe]

Do we have to believe everything the IBSCC said (some time ago)?

Ross G.

[n.igma]

The IBSCC is still alive and well and under the auspices of the IAPN. It consists of a bunch of numismatic industry heavy weights, who I respectfully suggest know a lot more about the state of play with respect to fakes than most on this board.

The fact that the publication of the IBSCC findings ceased some time back does not undermine in any way the published work's credibility (IBSCC Rule 28. In case of new information being brought to the attention of the IBSCC after the issue of an opinion, a case can be re-opened and the whole procedure started again. Until a new decision is reached, the previous one remains valid).

Its now done very much behind closed doors; members only, which begs an obvious question for any collector.

I suggest they don't want to scare off the punters, although equally one could argue they don't want to give much away to the fakers in an escalating war of wits ......

http://www.iapn-coins.org/ibscc.html
http://www.iapn-coins.org/ibscc/ibscc-rules.html
http://www.iapn-coins.org/ibscc/ibscc-archive.html

[Din X]

Do we have to believe everything the IBSCC said (some time ago)?

Ross G.

What does speak for the authenticity of them???

That it is die linked to published BOCS fakes from modern dies was only 1 agrument of many which I posted in my previous post.
Even if you doubt the expertise of IBSCC, my other arguments are still valid (wrong too crude style of herakles hair and zeus, too many die links and too many different mints and rulers are involved, sold by nfs on ebay, not know longer than 50 years, wrong pressed surface on some of them).

So can you disprove my arguments or at least try it with rhetorical tricks?

The funniest thing I ever hear was that authenticity is a matter of opinion
Someone wrote that when I tagged them as fakes on acsearch.
Fighting ignorance is wasting time because they see and think what they want to and  ignore arguments and facts.
I am not sure why "glebe" can or better do not want to understand me (trolling?), because I wrote the same to auction houses and they can interestingly undertand me and then withdraw the coins.

I do check if coins look imho fake into BOCS if they are already published.
This is concerning old fakes really often the case.
And that makes me always really happy if I see that really awesome Experts think the same as I do.
And if I can proof that it is a die match to a BOCS published fake from modern dies, I was always able to make them withdraw the fakes because they know how good IBSCC is.

I posted here so many problems why it is impossible that these fakes are authentic, all speaks against authenticity, there are already examples of them in fake reports including the one with missing P which were added because they were sold by (nfs) notorious fake sellers on ebay.

Some examples too lazy to search for more

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-9546   

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-7068

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-10705

[Din X]

Another of this fakes...

"
MACEDONIAN EMPIRE.Alexander III The Great 336-323 BC.AR.Tetradrachm, posthumous issue struck c.323-280 BC. Uncertain mint in Western Asia Minor.  ( 16.31g, 27.1mm, 12h )
 
Beardless bust right of Herakles wearing lion scalp.
Reverse. ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ, Zeus enthroned left holding eagle in outstretched right hand and sceptre in left, in front monogram ΠΥ.
Ref: Price 2727, Muller 1647, SNG Oxford 3177.
Exceptional central strike, good very fine or better, toned.
Extremely rare issue
 
Price records just one coin in his corpus for this issue, different dies to the above. I have not been able to find a single example offered to the public in the past 30 years. "


Total fantasy piece, which is obverse die linked to other fakes in this thread.
The mint is not uncertain, the mint is certainly in Bulgaria.

Price 2727 is a drachm

http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.2727

[n.igma]

Another for you collection of fakes is attached (top most image below crudely imitating Price 2724 Uncertain Western Asia Minor).

Its in a current auction. It is reverse die linked to your proceeding coin, while the obverse die was used to strike fakes of Arados II Price 3426 (Byblos of Price) - refer second image below for the obverse die matched fake of Arados II.

Quite a few of other dodgy specimens of different types, some described as uncertain imitations are also to be found in the same auction - certain fakes.

[n.igma]

Addressing the bold highlights from the quoted post above:

1) The vendor attribution to Price 2727 is laughably incorrect (surprise, surprise!). It seems that at best this guy is clueless and only seeks to peddle any old junk at an inflated price without regard to authenticity or correct attribution. At worst he's a fraudulent dealer. To ask £ 3,000.00 for such a blatantly unauthentic piece of junk is unconscionable. For such a price one would have expected the dealer to have conducted extreme due diligence on authenticity and attribution - notorious by name, notorious by nature!

2) Its not a fantasy piece but rather one imitating in a poor copy of Arcadian style the very rare Price 2724 (Uncertain Western Asia Minor)  - BM image of authentic coin below and online BM database link - http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1289783&partId=1&searchText=Price+2724&page=1

PELLA lists another specimen from the same dies in the Ashmolean collection - http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.2724

The style mismatch is very apparent, more so that Arados is about 1,000 km from Western Asia Minor!

[n.igma]

So why exactly is the missing P monogram type a fake?
Is it only because this variant is apparently new to the market?

Do we have to believe everything the IBSCC said (some time ago)?

In case the point and line of reasoning is lost in this most informative thread I post below the coin most recently tabled by Din X plus two others from the same obverse die.  

The coins from the same obverse die imitate Price 2724 (Uncertain Western Asia Minor), Price 3332 (Arados I) and Price 3426 (Arados II - Byblos of Price).  

The three discrete and separate mints they purport to represent are spread over a distance of ca. 1000 km and the issues span a decade of temporal separation yet all are from the same obverse die.  

There is only one conclusion - they are fakes from a modern obverse die (and it goes with saying modern reverse dies).

We don't need the IBSCC to tell us this, nor need we rely on the absence of the P in the AP monogram on the reverse of the third coin below.

Also the third coin below is most interesting as it puts paid to the often touted 'hoary old chestnut' that flan cracks are proof of authenticity.

Pressed coins can be produced to manufacture flan cracks, it is simply a function of manipulating the initial unpressed flan diameter to thickness ratio (smaller is better for developing flan cracks) and the rate of pressure increase in the press (rapid is better for developing flan cracks).

[Callimachus]

Quote from above posting:  "The coins from the same obverse die imitate Price 2724 (Uncertain Western Asia Minor), Price 3332 (Arados I) and Price 3426 (Arados II - Byblos of Price).  The three discrete and separate mints they purport to represent are spread over a distance of ca. 1000 km and the issues span a decade of temporal separation yet all are from the same obverse die."

Suppose the attributions to these three mints are wrong? (Price already lists one of them as being Uncertain.)

The above posting really did not answer the three question from glebe quoted at the beginning.

[Din X]

"The above posting really did not answer the three question from glebe quoted at the beginning."

n.igma  has already answered them But I will reanswer them again but I guess my answer will not be much different

n.igma  thx for the new die link, these huge amount of die links is getting ridiculous!


"So why exactly is the missing P monogram type a fake?"

"Is it only because this variant is apparently new to the market?"



NO, but if coins in this case fakes from these dies are not longer known than perhaps 60 years (all of them I know have a muuuch newer pedigree than 60 years), it should rise concerns especially if you consider how many fakes of this types are currently on the market and that none of them has a good pedigree. If they are really authentic at least one of this maaaaany fakes must have been found prior to 60 years ago and found its way to auction or museum or a collection and then beeing published. Not the case here ^^
If you consider the huge amount of die links you can ask yourself why aren´t they die linked to any authentic coin?
A die link to an authentic coin would speak for authenticity. (These are Lebanese Tourist fakes from modern dies)
The cruder style, sometimes much cruder style and that they are not die linked to authentic coins  makes it clear that they are not transfer die fakes but modern dies fakes.

That new authentic coins from so far  unpublished dies appear on the market (hoard found) is nothing special.
In a hoard are often so far unpublished coins of which some are die linked to other already published coins and generally many coins in the hoard are already published because specimens from the same dies have been found before.
The difference is that this new unpublished coins will show the same characterics/pecularities as other coins from this issue from already published dies.

I do always suspect coins that are different form what is "normal" for an issue/emission.

Not normal would be for example different fabric, style, weight, flan shape, material, size.

If there are differences you have to look for reasons why they are different.

Much cruder style of new unpublished coins is suspicious, die artists generally made more than one die.
And because the reverse dies did not last as long as obverse dies generally more reverse dies exist from many issue.
That means that there is a high chance to find other coins from this artis from different dies with good old pedigree or that at least an obverse or reverse die is die linked to an authentic coin with old pedigree. (not the case here)



1. Most of them show wrong fabric (pressed)
Pressed = 100 % fake, because a hydraulic press did not exist 2000 years ago

2. Three die combinations already published in BOC.


3. Modern dies "the style is not ancient and too crude, especially the hair on obverse and Zeus on the reverse."
And you can see that these fakes were made by the same artist, especially the obvere dies.


4. Maybe because fakes from these dies are not longer known than perhaps 60 years.

5. Maybe because these fakes are die linked together and too many die links exist and too many involved different mints.



"Do we have to believe everything the IBSCC said (some time ago)? "


No we do not have to believe them but everyone should consider their arguments that speak against the authenticity of these fakes.
And then everyone can decide if he thinks that their arguments are convincing or not.

Even if you neglect that some of them are condemned by IBSCC there are sill many arguments left that makes it impossible that they are authentic.

[Din X]

Another for you collection of fakes is attached (top most image below crudely imitating Price 2724 Uncertain Western Asia Minor).

Its in a current auction. It is reverse die linked to your proceeding coin, while the obverse die was used to strike fakes of Arados II Price 3426 (Byblos of Price) - refer second image below for the obverse die matched fake of Arados II.

Quite a few of other dodgy specimens of different types, some described as uncertain imitations are also to be found in the same auction - certain fakes.

The hammered one is IAPN published.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-9937

Belongs to an issue of Beirut forgeries. It imitates a tetradrachm struck at Byblos. The braod flan appears to have been hammered at the edges suggesting a much later date.

Published in the IAPN BOC Vol 11, No. 1 in 1986 - example 1
Image used with permission of IAPN

[n.igma]

Quote from above posting:  "The coins from the same obverse die imitate Price 2724 (Uncertain Western Asia Minor), Price 3332 (Arados I) and Price 3426 (Arados II - Byblos of Price).  The three discrete and separate mints they purport to represent are spread over a distance of ca. 1000 km and the issues span a decade of temporal separation yet all are from the same obverse die."

What Suppose the attributions to these three mints are wrong? (Price already lists one of them as being Uncertain.)

The above posting really did not answer the three question from glebe quoted at the beginning.

Absolute nonsense.

Suppose that all prior work is wrong then anything goes!  Very useful and insightful analysis! Contributions like this advance our understanding by no amount.

Authentication is a matter of detailed observation, comparison and facts not supposition.

The Uncertain in Uncertain Western Asia Minor as used by Price is his shorthand for an Uncertain mint probably located in Western Asia Minor.  The latter was inferred by Price and others on the basis of find locations and stylistic affinity.

Price's attribution to Arados is rock solid.  

Recent study has confirmed that the Byblos attribution of Price  of Price 3422 -3426 is incorrect and the re-attribution to a second mint at Arados is equally solid. In fact this is nothing more than a reversion to the original attribution of Muller and Newell. The AP and A/P monograms are nothing more than variations on the abbreviated ethnic of the city so we have the attribution from the hands of the people who made the coins!. And die studies confirm that these two mints at Arados did not share dies. The dies of each Arados mint are of  distinctively different styles and neither matches in any way the style of the obverse of the three obverse die linked coins I posted.

That fake obverse die is uniquely seeking to imitate Price 2724 which if you haven't noticed is characterized by the extremely unusual one sided knot/tie of the lion skin around the neck of Herakles (that is one reason why I posted the image and links to the authentic type in the BM and Ashmolen). Price 2724 is the only example of an Alexander that I am aware of that possesses this unique iconograhic/style element. It most certainly is not a component in the style conventions of either Arados I or II mints.The pairing of this obverse with reverse dies imitating Arados I and II stands out like a sore thumb as an indicator of fake origin.

Authentication is a matter of detailed observation, comparison and facts, not supposition.

I can only infer you may have bought one of these fakes to be so defensive of their authenticity.  But that doesn't alter the facts, even in this day and age of 'alternative facts'. My commiserations if you find yourself in this position, but take solace in the fact that you are far from alone.

Thank you for your insight.

[Callimachus]

Quote: "I can only infer you have bought one of these fakes to be so defensive of their authenticity.  But that doesn't alter the facts, even in this day and age of 'alternative facts'. My commiserations if you find yourself in this position, but take solace in the fact that you are far from alone."

I don't think I am "so defensive" of the authenticity of these coins. I barely said anything in my post.
I am slightly skeptical of some of what is written in this thread, but there is something seriously wrong if expressing that skepticism make you "infer you have bought one of these fakes."  ( For the record, I have only one Alexander tetradrachm from Arados with a palm tree at left (Price #3396).)

[Din X]

I am slightly skeptical of some of what is written in this thread


What exactly?

To the mint attribution by Price, yes it is possible even likely that his attribution based on style and mintmarks was not always correct.
No one is perfect.
As long as there are no better arguments available which show that the attribution from Price was wrong concerning one or more mints I would rely on Price and his arguments.


There are 5 or 6 different mints involved depending on if you count the A and AP monograms to the same or a different mint.
I do not think that his mint attribution for all of them is wrong.
I am not aware of die links between different mints of authentic Alexander III tetradrachms but I can not exclude the possibility.
I know that it rarely happened that the same artist made dies for different rulers at different mints and times.
Picture 4+5 shows coins from the same artist for different rulers at different mints and times (both are authentic and in Paris Museum).
There exist more examples of coins made by same artist at different mint and rulers and times.
The problem is here the huge amount of die links between these fakes (6 obverse and 6 revers dies linked from different mints) and that no die links exist to authentic coins.


Why not collecting arguments for and against authenticity?

Anyone is free to add arguments for authenticity here, I was not able to find anything that speaks for authenticity but I have maybe overseen some. ^^

I have already written together with  n.igma  some of the arguments against them.

But everyone is free to try to disprove the arguments from us that speak against authenticity.

I will add some more arguments against the authenticity

I forgot to mention  the number of die linked obverses and reverses in my posts above, 6 Obverse dies linked to 6 reverse dies from different times and mints.

I forgot to add that examples of most of these were sold in the past on eBay by notorious fake sellers but I guess that is not a good argument and we should remove all fakes that were added only by the argument sold by nfs from fake reports (have a look at fake reports how many fakes were added only because of this argument).
To be honest for me this is not a good argument because it is not helpful because the readers do not understand why exactly they are fake.  

I have forgotten to add that some of these exist with hammered and normal flan. (Hammered flan means anachronism, Nikokles (Νικοκλῆς) was a king of Paphos on the island of Cyprus, he died 306 BC but his coins were mined even earlier 325-317 BC).
Hammered flans did not exist at this time and that they minted coins from the same die once with hammered and once with normal flan is unlikely.  
The Nikokles tetradrachms are die linked to the other fakes here and some of them were sold by nfs.

Authentic Price 3119 for comparison

http://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3119

[Din X]

There even exit a seventh die linked obverse die but I only have the back and white IBSCC picture.

IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 3 Fig 10

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=x8G0S1wk5yU=

I admit that die links do exist on some authentic ancient coins but 7 obverse dies linked to 6 reverse dies really ?