Fakes – Arados II Workshop (formerly Byblos) Price 3423

[Joe Sermarini]

I left three of the reports that I believe have suspicious surfaces.  Opinions?

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/thumbnails.php?album=lastcom&cat=0

[Din X]

"I left three of the reports that I believe have suspicious surfaces.  Opinions?

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/thumbnails.php?album=lastcom&cat=0"


That die matches to my fake are supposed to be fake too, makes sense.
I do not know why my fake ended in the black cabinet of this dealer, but he must have had his reasons, the coin does not look that bad in hand but to be honest that does not make it authentic.
The other example you let in fake reports is the one I really suspected at the beginning, the surface and gold did not look right to me.

I never said that all of these coins posted in this thread are fake I said at least some of them, the ones I do not like are the Miletos examples, imho at least the ones Joe added are fake.
To te examples from other mints, there seem to exist die links to authentic examples of this mints, when I looked last time I found one die link to an example in PELLA (search engine not mint) and some possible die matches but it was not clear because the museum specimens were pretty worn. I compared them will all issues of these mints for die links. If you brows through literature  (museum collections, old collections, etc.) there will likely more die links possibly even some die matches found.


"As for the balance of the Miletos reverse die linked issues I highlighted, I haven't done enough study to absolutely confirm authenticity and I cannot rule out the possibility that some of the Miletos coins may be fake, the product of mixing modern transfer dies (not to be confused with ancient transfered dies)."

"What you say about die life and reverse/obverse die ratios is correct on average and in a serial striking environment. However, parallel striking on multiple anvils using a shared die inventory can turn that on its head. From one day to the next the same reverse may be paired with a different obverse giving rise to  multiple associations of the reverse die with obverse dies.  Mroeover, many studies have shown that some obverse dies fail rapidly (some on first strike) while many produce way beyond the average. Similarly for reverse dies. The average die life is just that and reflects many very short die lives plus fewer very long die lives."

Dies can be mixed in a mint if they mint coins with 2 or more die pairs at the same time, but then I would expect this combinations
To strike 2 coins at the same time you need 2 die pairs = 2 obverse and 2 reverse dies.

Not mixed (1+2)

1. Obverse A with Reverse A

2. Obverse B with Reverse B

When mixed (3+4)

3. Obverse B with Reverse A

4. Obverse A with Reverse B




But for Miletos we have

Obverse A with Reverse A

Obverse B with Reverse A

Obverse C with Reverse A

Obverse D with Reverse A

Obverse E with Reverse A

So I am actually looking for the missing examples which show that this oberse dies were paired with other reverse dies, too. (I do not think that they exist, because some of these are fake)
Yes, an obverse die can break even at the beginning ok, actually the chacne that the reverse die breaks first is higher but it does not matter.
But is it plausible that 4 OVBVERSE dies do all break short after they were made and you need some pressure that a die breaks why was then the REVERSE die not damaged ?
Why do this obverse dies not exist with different reverse dies fromt this mint? (If serial production, it can happen that dies are mixed)
To produce a die costs time and money, so i think that they would have looked for the problem if 1-2 obverse dies break short after the beginning of their usage.
The empolyes of the mint will start to think why only this one or two dies broke while other dies lasted much longer and look for differences to dies which lasted much longer and they will then likely find the problem and fix it. Was it possibly the fault of the striker?
I think that they would have replaced the striker and other possible guilty persons with new persons at least after the 3 obverse die broke.

Again 5 OBVERSE dies paired with only 1 REVERSE die is impossible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



 

[n.igma]

.....
Yes, an obverse die can break even at the beginning ok, actually the chacne that the reverse die breaks first is higher but it does not matter.
But is it plausible that 4 OVBVERSE dies do all break short after they were made and you need some pressure that a die breaks why was then the REVERSE die not damaged ?
Why do this obverse dies not exist with different reverse dies fromt this mint? (If serial production, it can happen that dies are mixed)
To produce a die costs time and money, so i think that they would have looked for the problem if 1-2 obverse dies break short after the beginning of their usage.
The empolyes of the mint will start to think why only this one or two dies broke while other dies lasted much longer and look for differences to dies which lasted much longer and they will then likely find the problem and fix it. Was it possibly the fault of the striker?
I think that they would have replaced the striker and other possible guilty persons with new persons at least after the 3 obverse die broke.

Again 5 OBVERSE dies paired with only 1 REVERSE die is impossible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would say improbable, rather than impossible, as it would take a combination of rare circumstances to realize this outcome.  A succession of premature obverse die failures while the reverse remains in tact, followed by the hoarding and modern recovery of a sample of the few coins struck from these obverse dies. Impossible to conceive of this happening? Definitely not. But the probability of this sequence of events is low. Which may be why we have only seen it once? Or it could be indicative of the introduction of modern transfer die fake assemblages into the sequence? It requires a lot more investigation to establish conclusively, either way!

I have seen quite a few low probability outcomes comes to pass in my lifetime, so I am reluctant to dismiss the Miletos coins on the weight of probability alone. At a minimum a solid physical examination of the coins is required to strengthen the case.

P.S. I have examples from some mints that show reverse dies were cut in iron/steel, while obverse dies were cut in bronze (based on the evidence of die rust in the sequence).

The reason for this is that iron was stronger but more difficult to work than bronze.

Steel reverse dies stood up to the hammer blows better than bronze, hence the preference.

Obverse dies required more detailed engraving (easier in bronze than steel) and were to a degree protected from inordinate stress by virtue of there anvil role.

This explains the relative usage of steel (reverse) vs bronze (obverse) dies apparent in some mints.

BUT it also provides an other reason why obverse dies might fail prematurely in succession if the batch of bronze for the obverse dies was from an impure melt, which will cause extensive intergranular embrittlement a key contributor to premature metal failure.

So your impossibility is far from it, if differing metals were used for the obverse and reverse dies as was demonstrably the case in some mints.

As for Miletos, I haven't examined the output in sufficient detail to determine whether such was the case.

But I point this out to simply say that one cannot be too dogmatic, unless the coinage has been studied in volume and in detail down to the die level.

[Din X]

"I would say improbable, rather than impossible, as it would take a combination of rare circumstances to realize this outcome.  A succession of premature obverse die failures while the reverse remains in tact, followed by the hoarding and modern recovery of a sample of the few coins struck from these obverse dies. Impossible to conceive of this happening? Definitely not. But the probability of this sequence of events is low. Which may be why we have only seen it once? Or it could be indicative of the introduction of modern transfer die fake assemblages into the sequence? It requires a lot more investigation to establish conclusively, either way! "

To produce a new die costs time and money so they will try to find out what destroyed the last die before they create a new die.
So they do brainstroming and think what could have been responsible that the last die died so early.
Then they find out some reasons, for example fault of striker, problem with alloy of the dies or anvil.

So they have 3 possible reasons then.

So they can replace one or all of this possibly causes to see if it was really this one or one of them.

The smartes thing is to replace all three possible casues (striker, alloy and anvil) at the same time so you will see if the dies are still breaking or not.
If the die is still breaking it wasn ´t one of this three causes, if the die lasts as long as it should then it was one of this three causes.

It is possible to replace the striker first to see if the striker was responsible
Second you replace the anvil to see if the anvil was responsible
And third you change the alloy
If the dies are still breaking it must have been a different reason


I do fix the PCs of friends if they have hardware problems, black screen...
There are tools to read out the error and depending what is wrong the mainboard will piep with different sounds.
You actually do not need this, it makes it only easier to find the problem.

I fist check if everything is installed correctly and if the hardware is compatible (if the system was running before stable, then the hardware must be compatible)

What I do is, I take for example his cpu and do it into one compatible pc sytem of mine to see if the cpu is working there.
If Cpu is running I know that the cpu is ok, if it is not running the cpu is damaged and was likely the or one of the resons why the pc is not working.
I do this for the other components of his pc too, I place one of this components into a compatible pc system and look if it works there!
This method works 100%

I exclude possible causes, one after another.


It is easily possible to find out what was responsible for the quick death of the dies without wasting four dies.
That they go on destroying dies without trying to solve the problem does not make sense because dies are expensive and time consuming to produce.
No one likes it to waste money and time !!!!!!!!!!




 

[n.igma]

Your underlying assumption is that a new die was only cut after one broke. That is unlikely to have been the case in a high volume continuously operating mint such as Miletos, which employed over twenty engravers in the lifetime Alexander series. To have done so would have seen an eight hour wait on a new die, thus disrupting the production process, leaving half a dozen people involved in flan preparation and and striking idle. More likely dies were engraved in advance of any breakage. On breakage of a die in use, a new die would have been immediately withdrawn from the inventory of engraved dies so as to avoid disruption to production and massive idle down time.  Once prepared and placed in the inventory, dies would have been put into use successively, regardless of premature breakage, as the engraver's labor was already a sunk cost, so any production from the die was better than none.

And please don't confuse die breakage with die wear. They are totally separate things and it is apparent from die studies that many dies broke before incurring any material wear i.e. the broke after relatively few strikes.

You study fakes, I study authentic coins. Two different perspectives that will ultimately converge on the truth as evidence mounts. But we're not there yet.

I suggest that is enough said on the subject of the Miletos coins pending further detailed study and resultant insights and/or the emergence of further evidence that takes the analysis closer to a conclusion. Until then, I'll keep an open but guarded mind on the matter of authenticity.

[Din X]

Your underlying assumption is that a new die was only cut after one broke. That is unlikely to have been the case in a high volume continuously operating mint such as Miletos, which employed over twenty engravers in the lifetime Alexander series. To have done so would have seen an eight hour wait on a new die, thus disrupting the production process, leaving half a dozen people involved in flan preparation and and striking idle. More likely dies were engraved in advance of any breakage. On breakage of a die in use, a new die would have been immediately withdrawn from the inventory of engraved dies so as to avoid disruption to production and massive idle down time.  Once prepared and placed in the inventory, dies would have been put into use successively, regardless of premature breakage, as the engraver's labor was already a sunk cost, so any production from the die was better than none.

And please don't confuse die breakage with die wear. They are totally separate things and it is apparent from die studies that many dies broke before incurring any material wear i.e. the broke after relatively few strikes.

You study fakes, I study authentic coins. Two different perspectives that will ultimately converge on the truth as evidence mounts. But we're not there yet.

I suggest that is enough said on the subject of the Miletos coins pending further detailed study and resultant insights and/or the emergence of further evidence that takes the analysis closer to a conclusion. Until then, I'll keep an open but guarded mind on the matter of authenticity.

That they produce maybe 1 or two dies in advance ok but not 4 or 5.

The best weapon agains fakes is knowledge, because forgers are often scientists but not numismatics so they are not familiar with specific details of some coin emission.

I do not care about history books, I have studied history and theology.
History books are full of theories which often turn out to be wrong when new sources are found !!!
My professors had sometimes a different opinion as what is written in books but they had good arguments for their opinion but the arguments in the books were plausible, too.
And the first thing I learned there (university Tübingen) was RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!!

One example the "Great Fire of Rome AD 64"
Who was responsible Nero, was it an accident etc. we do not know and we will never know. And who cares

For example one academis has the opinin for example Nero was responsible and he mentions his argments why he thinks so, (he does not mention what speaks about his theory that Nero was responsible).

Next academic says that it was an accident and what speaks for an accident and he says with arguments why he does not think that Nero was responsible (but the does not mention what speaks agains an accident)

And a third academic has a a completely differnt opinion what caused the burn of Rom and he will tell his arguments, too.

Again, I do not care for history books they are full of theories and speculation.

I think that I am a good example that no history books are required to detect fakes.

I do campare authentic coins from one issue with suspicious coins and then I decide if the suspicious coins are really fake or not.
I can look for example if the artist of a suspected coin made other coin too which are already prooven as authentic. (die study)
Most artist made more than one die, and if they made several dies you can see a development in style, the style becomes better.
But this can be helpful in the other direction too because forgery often make many fakes from different emperors or kings and if the kings/emperors lived too many years (maybe 100 year+) aways from each other you can be sure that this coins must all be fake. They could only be authetnic if the die maker would have live for exampel 112 years he must have been at lest maybe 12 when he started cutting dies.   
 
I am confident that the solution if fake or not can not be found in books

A new hoard find from excavations from archaeologists would rather solve the problem, if they find die matches to the suspected coins, the suspected coins will then be either authentic or struck from transfer dies but not from modern dies.

[Joe Sermarini]

That they produce maybe 1 or two dies in advance ok but not 4 or 5.

I don't know of any reason to make this assumption.

[Din X]

That they produce maybe 1 or two dies in advance ok but not 4 or 5.

I don't know of any reason to make this assumption.

It is not economic to produce more than needed !!!
Reserve dies should warranty that the production has not to stop because you have to wait till a new die is produced.
The only reason for a reserve die would be that you want to have a replacement if a die breaks and you want to avoid that the production will stop then, so then broken die can immediately be replaced with the reserve die and the production can go on. Then a new reserve die will be created.

Let´s say you mint with 5 die pairs, then you will have max. 5 reserve die pairs but likely much less because the chance that they do break all at the same time is about 0.
It is extremely unlikely that all 5 obverse dies will break at the same day!
The number of reserve dies will be reflecting how long their previous dies lasted.
Considering the die failure rate in the past they will produce and store some reserve dies.
Let´s say that this 5 dies break within 5 days, every day a die breaks, so you have 4 days time after the break of the first die to produce 1or 2 new replacement dies.
In the period between the break of the dies it will be always enough time to produce some new replacement dies.
So 2-3 replacement die are more than enough if you mint 5 coins at the same time.
It is not that easy to break iron dies, I have iron dies, bronze die and nickel dies (160+ die pairs), which were used to mint silver, gold and bronze.
Iron dies are best, nickel and bronze do break more easy but even there it is not that easy to destroy them ^^
I am still curious how you want to break a iron die that easy.

A. Storage of costs money ( need room to be stored save)

B. you have to pay money and invest time now for something, which you will possibly need much later or which in a bad case you possibly will never need again if you produced too many.

The the ancient sources we have are often incomplete and so not representative (much was destroyed or is still buried etc., we often have only few or no sources and written sources are always subjective (the author had an specific intention when he wrotes it)

Some new archaeological finds can change our knowledge about history and correct wrong theories and speculations.


It is impossibel to know how many dies were used at the same time except they find this number of anvil.

You calculate from die links is imho not possible.

Die links can be from die failure (die breaks and is replaced with a new die), if dies are stored in the same box, but do we know if the had reserve die and if so they would have been likely stored in the same box with the dies in use and mixed with them.

So how many die liked due to broken dies how many due to mixing with reserve dies ?

Pure speculation, I love facts and I hate speculation.


 

[n.igma]

With all due respect to you study of fakes and expert knowledge in this area, I have to say that find it I find it curious that it makes you an expert on ancient mint practices.

The latter can only come from the detailed study of ancient coin die sequences, not modern fakes.

It is erroneous to think that the study of modern fakes affords insight into ancient mint practice.

To illustrate the error this has lead you into:

That they produce maybe 1 or two dies in advance ok but not 4 or 5.

I don't know of any reason to make this assumption.

Mr Sermarini is absolutely correct. The evidence of many ancient die studies provides contrary evidence to that which you assert. It is to be found in some sequences of reverse dies, the primary iconography and epigraphy of all from the same engraver's hand, but bearing successive mint controls from a completely different and often inexperienced hand.

In such cases this indicates that many reverse dies were in the inventory and as they were successively put into use under different mint officials a die was withdrawn from the inventory and the appropriate control engraved, as  the precursor to its commissioning. By this stage it appears the original engraver had moved on and the job of cutting the mint control was left to someone else, in some instances a clearly inexperienced hand judging by the clumsiness of the effort. So by studying original authentic coins you come to the opposite conclusion to that which you assert based on your study of modern fakes.

Best to remember that die engravers were the most skilled artisans in the mint system. High levels of visual acuity, matched by dexterity and artistic creativity were prerequisites for the job. These guys did not sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for dies to break before commencing and completing the next die in the sequence. Moreover, they most certainly didn't wield the hammer or stoke the furnace which would place the primary tools of their work (eyes and hands) at risk. Remember when dies break they often explosively shatter!  No, these guys focused on engraving alone and there is increasing evidence that they moved between mints in Alexander's time, later under the successors, and later again in the Achaian League mints of Greece which clearly operated intermittently for short periods and were dependent on traveling skilled artisans to secure an inventory of dies to support their intermittent production.

I gather from your comments that you might not like authentic coin studies, or history for that matter, but I suggest that it pays to respect the findings of such research effort. To dismiss them in a dogmatic manner serves no useful purpose and weakens credibility.

This discussion has now strayed way off topic, into the area of ancient mint practice, which is a fascinating, developing area of study, now enabled by modern statistical analysis, soon to be assisted by artificial intelligence driven image analysis. It is one which I anticipate will come to the front of numismatic research in coming years.

I repeat that from my perspective:

I suggest that is enough said on the subject of the Miletos coins pending further detailed study and resultant insights and/or the emergence of further evidence that takes the analysis closer to a conclusion. Until then, I'll keep an open but guarded mind on the matter of authenticity.

[Joe Sermarini]

...Mr Sermarini...

Please call me Joe.  Please do not call me Mr.

[Din X]

Again, the problem is that the attribution to one mint is based on style, control marks and die links this is error prone.
The attribution to one mint and the location of this mint are not that save very often.
Some new findings coin hoards with new die links new dies, maybe even a mint with tools and dies and everything can be changed.

So if the attribution from Price/Newell is not correct or the mint location, and you rely on this and information and if you conclude and argue based on this information, you will have a problem if the attribution or location turn out to be wrong later, maybe the real mint will be found in future with some of their dies and coins in a differnet city.

Some of the coins you rely your argumentation on could be fakes from modern dies or recutted transfer die fakes, then you have a problem.
There are fakes in museum collections and literature, too.

A meal can only be as good as the ingredients used to make it.


This books can be interesting for some but I only care for facts, yes there are some facts too in the books but many assumptions, too.

[Din X]

I added better picture of my fake and an clearly authetnic example from this issue.

The 5 Miletos obverse dies + 1 reverse die fakes have all a dead lifeless surfaces, no signs of metal flow like on the authentic exmaple, that is why I suspected them first.

The upper part of the stylis looks very suspicious on all of these suspected coins, something is wrong with it it becomes smaller to the top and the top is missing on all.

 

 







 

[n.igma]

I agree that the surfaces of your coin are problematic. Moreover, as you note, they lack flow lines indicative of striking from moderately worn dies, yet the design elements lack the sharpness normally associated with fresh dies and in most respects fall short in a detailed sharpness comparison with the authentic coin (although the latter is from a different obverse die).

The authentic coin on the other hand possesses flow lines on both obverse and reverse (detail images below) indicative of struck origin from moderately worn dies (i.e. the dies around the edges of the design have been scoured by the the flow of metal on previously struck blanks, giving rise to the flow lines on the later stuck coins).

This indicates that  some examples may be fake from transfer dies lifted from  authentic coins of the type. This identification of itself does not completely solve  the problem of the low die pairing ratio (reverse/obverse dies) that is observed, unless some of the other obverse dies with which the transfer die of the once authentic reverse is paired can be identified as fake. This requires detailed analysis of the surfaces of the other Miletos die linked coins.

[Din X]

One of these terrible fakes has been withdrawn from auciton together with another fake Alexander Stater and a fake Philip II quater stater.
The fake had been auctioned before but now in a ANACS slab like the other 2 fakes.

Here is the fake with Amphipolis obverse (same obverse die as in Berlin and Paris) and the Byblos reverse die Price 3423.

Meanwhile I had the pleasure to be able toown an authentic stater and to see authentic staters in hand and many fake staters.
And many more fake and authentic staters on pictures.

The fakes are transfer die fakes and their surface is DEAD, LIEFLESS, possibly due to detail loss which can not be avoided if you make transfer dies.

Top picture from auciton house when it was offered first time
Pictures blow, same coin offered and withdrawn at current US auction

[Din X]

The obverse die same as Price 176 Amphipolis


https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18251877


https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b113167374

[Din X]

We have now die links between Amphipolis, Byblos and Miletos and several of these FAKES have a dead surface.
Because the fake are transfer die fakes, authentic coins from the same dies exist!!!!
But no authentic coins exist with this die combination  Amphipolis to Byblos and Miletos to Byblos!
I assume that some of the other obverse dies, which exist with this Byblos reverse die were not from Byblos, too.
Same die state indicates that all of them were minted short after each other so we have to assume that the
There are more of them but I do not want to spam this thread with pictures.

[Dominic T]

Excellent work. I think you should change your name from Din X to SHERLOCK HOLMES…
DT

[Din X]

Thank you!

Another impossible die link, obverse Aruad reverse Miletos.
And obverse Arud to reverse Babylon

There is a Λ behind Athena´s helmet, so it was easy to find this obverse die, the Λ  might be signature of artist.



https://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3314



https://numismatics.org/pella/id/price.3314#iiif-window

[Din X]

New die combination Babylon to Byblos

[Din X]

Another obverse die found in correct die combination, we know now all obverse dies with one fitting reverse die.
The top one is transfer die fake with Miletos obverse Byblos reverse.
The other ones are Miletos obverse with Miletos reverse and boths are authentic.

[Din X]

We have now these die combinations of the transfer die fakes !
All coins from this post are transfer die fakes !
The 3 transfer die fakes with fitting correct die combination obverse and reverse from same mint can be proven fake, due to same die flaws and die state and problems as the transfer die fakes.

5 mints involved

Obverse Amphipolis to reverse Byblos
Obverse Miletos to reverse Byblos
Obverse Byblos to reverse Byblos
Obverse Aruad to reverse Babylon
Obverse Aruad to reverse Miletos
Obverse Babylon to reverse Miletos
Obverse Byblos to reverse Miletos
Obverse Miletos to reverse Miletos
Obverse Babylon to reverse Babylon

All 5 mints

Amphipolis (1 obverse die)
Aruad (1 obverse die)
Babylon (1 obverse and 1 reverse die)
Byblos (1 obverse and 1 reverse die)
Miletos (2 obverse and 1 reverse die)

6 obverse die from 5 different mints and 3 reverse dies from 3 different mints!

All of them are connected through die links.

And no die links to other coins from the same mint (exception Miletos, of which we have 2 pair of dies ) but die links to 4 different mints.


Important, I do not write and count here in this post the die combinations of the real authentic coins of which these transfer dies fakes were copied from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Sermarini]

Please help ensure we have fake coin reports for the fakes and we do not have fake coin reports for any genuine coins of this type.