Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price. All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity! Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Fake Coin Reports, Notorious Fake Sellers, and Discussions (Moderators: maridvnvm, Ilya Prokopov)  |  Topic: Octavianus with M. Pinarius Scarpus transfer die + host 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: Octavianus with M. Pinarius Scarpus transfer die + host  (Read 1758 times)
Din X
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



« on: February 18, 2017, 02:17:33 am »

The Roman Republic
Octavianus with M. Pinarius Scarpus. Denarius, Cyrenaica 31, AR 4.41 g. IMP·CAESARI / SCARPVS IMP Open r. hand. Rev. DIVI·F / AVG:PONΓ Victory standing on globe r., holding wreath tied with fillet and palm branch over l. shoulder. B. Pinaria 12 and Julia 142. C 500. Sydenham 1282. Sear Imperators 413. CBN 894. Crawford 546/6. Kent-Hirmer pl. 32, 114.

The centering is the same on the coin and the transfer die. (same parts of the dotted border are off flan)
They have the same die flaws and problems (picture 4 arrows)
So was the fake die used to make this coin or was this coin used to make the die?
The transfer dies are supposed to be made from recent finds (looted coins), seller told me so.
Which is plausible.
How else should they be able to make the transfer die without having the host coin in hand?

I bought in the past some further 80 fake dies of which some are transfer dies while others are modern dies, which is why I did not publish them so far. I have not overlooked them so far.

Picture 1 is a small selection of some of them.
Picture 2 is the transfer die (mirrored)
Picture 3 is the possibly host of the transfer die
Picture 4 merged host + transfer die
Picture 5 my unsorted 80 new dies (will check them within the next weeks)






Logged
djmacdo
Tribunus Plebis 2017
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2940

I love this forum!


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2017, 07:15:46 am »

Amazing.  Please keep up your good work.
Logged
Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1202



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2017, 07:28:26 am »

I wonder how many genuine dies are known for this type?  If this is a transfer die (it certainly appears to be), it may very well match many genuine coins if only a few dies are known.
Logged

Norbert
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


42


« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2017, 08:46:59 am »

I wonder how many coins may have been struck with these dies. And how many of these made it to the market and where.

Thanks for the good work
Logged

Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1202



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2017, 10:44:10 am »

Studying the coin vs. the die, I note that the tail of the P in IMP looks longer on the die (nearly meeting the dot border) than on the coin. 
Logged

Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1202



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2017, 03:15:11 pm »

Any thoughts on my prior post in which I pointed out a difference between the coin and the die?  Based on the difference noted, I don't see how this coin could have struck by this die. Perhaps the coin, or one struck from the same die as the coin, was the host for the transfer die and the P was reengraved during the transfer die preparation.  I see no reason to suspect the coin.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2017, 03:25:58 pm »

Quote from: Carausius on February 21, 2017, 03:15:11 pm
Any thoughts on my prior post in which I pointed out a difference between the coin and the die?  Based on the difference noted, I don't see how this coin could have struck by this die. Perhaps the coin, or one struck from the same die as the coin, was the host for the transfer die and the P was reengraved during the transfer die preparation.  I see no reason to suspect the coin.

I think this is an important post. The fake dies under discussion, and any fake pieces struck from such fake dies, were apparently made in modern times by transfer from genuine coins. It's essential for the integrity of these fake discussions that, in the case of transfer dies, we do not malign perfectly genuine coins that were struck in ancient times using ancient dies. In the case of differences such a pointed out by Carausius, we need to recognise such, and defer to expert dealers who have handled such coins in person and considered them genuine, and be careful not to cast doubts on valuable genuine coins sold by reputable dealers and owned by collectors.

This really goes to the heart of how we approach potential fakes on Forum. If fakes have been made by modern transfer dies, and we then start condemning coins that are apparently die matches without considering fabric differences and strike differences, and actual die differences. then we may as well consider everything a fake. The comments by Din-X on this seem to be rather loose talk.
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2017, 05:32:47 pm »

Quote from: Carausius on February 21, 2017, 03:15:11 pm
Any thoughts on my prior post in which I pointed out a difference between the coin and the die?  Based on the difference noted, I don't see how this coin could have struck by this die. Perhaps the coin, or one struck from the same die as the coin, was the host for the transfer die and the P was reengraved during the transfer die preparation.  I see no reason to suspect the coin.

Quote from: Carausius on February 18, 2017, 10:44:10 am
Studying the coin vs. the die, I note that the tail of the P in IMP looks longer on the die (nearly meeting the dot border) than on the coin.  

I think you may be confusing a dark mottled patch (of which there are many) on the grey scale image of die surface with an extension of the darker deeply engraved leg of the P. This mottled patch on the die surface superficially makes the leg of the P appear longer than the true engraved component. Taking this to account the length of the engraved tail or leg of P is identical to that observed on the coin.

We also need to remember that fake dies also wear in use and that the state of the worn fake die in its final form at the end of its working life (as shown here) may not directly reflect the very fine detail of the host or a coin struck earlier in the fake die's life and vice versa. Wear over a fake die's life must be considered a factor in any comparison. Also bulk transport and handling of used dies in a bag of the type shown has the potential to impart damage and fine 'detail' on the transfer die surface that was not present during its use or on the host coin from which it derived. All these factors must be weighed in the consideration.

Suggestion for Din X: It may assist if you were to make Plasticine or molding clay imprints/'strikes' of the dies for comparison, in addition to reversing the die image for comparison to the coin.

Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2017, 06:10:35 pm »

In addition to the preceeding i ask what doe the state of the die form and state of the mounts tell us about the process by which the fakes were manufactured?

Struck by hammer versus pressed by mechanical press?

Looking at the images the dies appear to be case hardened bronze mounted in perfectly cylindrical steel mounts. The latter bear no sign of damage or deformation that would arise from repeated striking with a hammer. The perfectly cylindrical form of the die mounts is consistent with mechanical press mounting.

Therefore, I surmise based on the images that pressed rather than struck fakes were the product of these dies.

Therein lies a clue for authentication - the presence of clear evidence of striking on the surfaces such as mint luster, flow lines flan splits etc.  Conversely the absence of such features coupled with a die match is condemnatory. Beware those coins that display (even in images) the flat, lifeless, expressionless surfaces so characteristic of pressed fakes, particularly if of a type represented by one of the  faker's dies in the image heading the thread.

A corollary of the surmise that the die is case hardened bronze is that the die life would be limited as the case hardening is restricted to a thin surface layer, which would readily be broken through and disrupted with use (or rough handling at the end of its life). This means it would quickly develop additional surface details with use that could be imparted to the pressed fake's surface and these surface breaks and defects would develop through the working life of the fake die (nor would these be represented on the host coin for the transfer die).
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Din X
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2017, 01:06:40 am »

Quote from: Carausius on February 21, 2017, 03:15:11 pm
Any thoughts on my prior post in which I pointed out a difference between the coin and the die?  Based on the difference noted, I don't see how this coin could have struck by this die. Perhaps the coin, or one struck from the same die as the coin, was the host for the transfer die and the P was reengraved during the transfer die preparation.  I see no reason to suspect the coin.

Quote from: Carausius on February 18, 2017, 10:44:10 am
Studying the coin vs. the die, I note that the tail of the P in IMP looks longer on the die (nearly meeting the dot border) than on the coin.  

I think you may be confusing a dark mottled patch (of which there are many) on the grey scale image of die surface with an extension of the darker deeply engraved leg of the P. This mottled patch on the die surface superficially makes the leg of the P appear longer than the true engraved component. Taking this to account the length of the engraved tail or leg of P is identical to that observed on the coin.

We also need to remember that fake dies also wear in use and that the state of the worn fake die in its final form at the end of its working life (as shown here) may not directly reflect the very fine detail of the host or a coin struck earlier in the fake die's life and vice versa. Wear over a fake die's life must be considered a factor in any comparison. Also bulk transport and handling of used dies in a bag of the type shown has the potential to impart damage and fine 'detail' on the transfer die surface that was not present during its use or on the host coin from which it derived. All these factors must be weighed in the consideration.

Suggestion for Din X: It may assist if you were to make Plasticine or molding clay imprints/'strikes' of the dies for comparison, in addition to reversing the die image for comparison to the coin.



You are correct, something of the die broke out (SHARP OUTLINES) below the P which makes it look longer.
There is a die flaw (sharp outlines) above the I of Caesri and right to the I of Caesari. Die flaw = die is damaged which means that some metal broke out of the die.
This differences Carausius is speaking of are now in the dies because the dies were damaged, they were not in the transfer dies when they were made !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The transfer dies I have are in their lates die state after being used and transported several times, from usage and transport they were damaged and show now differences to their state when they were fresh and unsued.
There were fakes produced before these die flaws appeared in the fake die.
So yes you can say that all coins which have this new die flaw are fake, but you can not say that all coins which do not have this die flaws are authentic because they produced fakes with this transfer dies before these flaws appeared!

And it is pretty obvious that the coin in this thread is 100 % authentic and the host, I only wanted to see if you understand why.
1. There is no other potential host and to find one for such a rare issue is about 0  !
2.The fake transfer die shows the same centering including dotted border, they are made at the same die state (die flaw above the M of IMP) and you can see in the transfer dies as ghost line the flan shape of the host coin.
3. It is possible to make an exact copy of a coin in a transfer die (only little bit softer details), but the opposite is not possible to strike or press a coin which is an exact copy of the dies.
4. As said before you can see the outlines of the host coin in the dies, so it would be necessary to create a planchet that exactly fits to the outlines in the transfer die and then placing it 100% at the right position between the transfer dies, and then hoping that the differences due to striking or pressing are not to big to be recognized.

On this transfer die they did not recut the dotted border like they did on other transfer dies, which sadly makes it too easy to detect them:(
To recut the dotted border here good would be callenging and this forgers are not the best in recutting so they did not try.
They can not vary centering and flan shape much because then you would notice that the dotted border is not complete in the transfer dies.
You only have to look for parts of the dotted border on the coins which are not in the fake dies, if there are part of the dotted border on the coin which are not on the transfer die than this coin can not be made with this transfer dies. And even if the dotted border is recutted, the number and position of the dots is different.
Other things to look for are individual characteristics that were transfered to the transfer dies.
Individual characteristics are things that ARE/WERE NOT IN THE ATHENTIC DIES and appeared on the coin due striking flan/egde cracks, flat struck areas, slippage (die shift), or from usage testcuts or banker markes or scratches etc...

Picture 1 : fake made with this fake die (die flaw above P and over I) artificially crystallized.

Picture 2 showing some more of the fake dies
Some of the transfer dies are made with electroplating( better sharper details) and some were made by casting like this transfer die.
Some of this dies are modern dies.

Picture 3 shows that they made sometimes 2 or more transfer dies from same host.

Picture 4 shows some of my Sicilian fakes which were STRUCK and not pressed like most of the Sicilian fakes. (slippage dolphin dekadrachm) and Zeus upper coin is double struck.
They made them cheap for me so no authentic ancient coins as planchet as they do on some of their high quality fakes. So no convincing flan shape.
 
Picture 5 my fake Milita coin, for which an ancient coin was used as planchet.
The patina (corrosion) goes through the whole coin as it can be seen on the edge.
It takes thousends of years till the corrosion will come to the inside of the object.
Artificial patina is always only on the surface because artificial patina and can not go through the whole object.
And yes chamical reaction can be accelerated with temperature RGT rule (10 Kelvin warmer = chemical reaction will be 2-4 times faster)
let s say 10k = 2 times as fast reaction.
If it takes 2000 years for such a patina (corrosion) with a temperature of 20 degrees, it will take 1000 years with a temperature of 30 degrees for such a patina ....
makes 7,812 years with a temperature of 100 degrees.
Forgers want fast profit and not waiting years for their money, only makes sense for really really expensive objects.
Creating good patina itself in to not difficult, Becker burried them and used his urin and depending what he ate the colour of the patina was varying. (so far best method)  

"we then start condemning coins that are apparently die matches without considering fabric differences and strike differences, and actual die differences. then we may as well consider everything a fake. The comments by Din-X on this seem to be rather loose talk."

As said before the differences were not in the transfer dies when they were fresh and so meaningless for fakes struck from fresh dies before the die was damaged.
As shown in picture 4 many of their fakes are struck so fabric will not help and , and there are no strike differences because it is an exact copy of the host coin with little bit softer details.
Flan shap and patina will not help because they sometimes use anchient coins as planchet (picture 5).





Logged
Molinari
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3952


Herakles cheated!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2017, 04:55:29 am »

Thanks for posting these Din X.  I'd like to see the Neapolitan Apollo/man-faced bull dies up close when you get a chance.

Why are they selling them to you?  Have these all already been condemned elsewhere?  Did they have a change of heart?
Logged

Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1202



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2017, 07:28:57 am »

A few follow-up points:

1. Thank you, DinX, for confirming that the elongated P is in the die and not just a smudge of dirt, as suggested by N.Igma.

2. The photo you just posted of the broken coin struck from these dies shows the elongated P and the damaged I.  Unless you can produce multiple fakes struck from this die without the elongated P or damaged I, I don't think we can know for sure whether those flaws were always in the die, whether the die broke on first strike, or whether the die broke after 1,000 strikes.

3. You state in your last post that the original coin is genuine, but you were quite equivoval in your original post in which you left open the question whether it was a host or a fake  If you think a coin is genuine, make it clear; if you think a coin is suspect, look at the arguments for and against (i.e. die differences, not just die similarities). I like N.Igma's suggestion of perhaps using castings of the dies for illustrations rather than photos of coins or  limit yourself to 100% certain fakes like the broken/crystalized example you just shared.
Logged

Din X
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2017, 10:17:39 am »

@ Molinari

The forgers do have a heart for money and only money Wink
They made the fakes with this dies for more than 10 years so their crime fraud is "past the statute of limitations" and so it is save for them to sell them.
They refused to sell me the good "deceptive" dies so they do not have a heart.

Some dies are still in mail, so some couples/pairs are still incomplete (Scarpus reverse die is missing).
Will make a picture as soon as I have the obverse and reverse of the Neapolitan transfer die.
This transfer dies are actually not really necessary to detect this fakes as fakes!
I only bought them as confirmation that some coins which were suspected by me are acutally fake!

@ Carausius

"2. The photo you just posted of the broken coin struck from these dies shows the elongated P and the damaged I.  Unless you can produce multiple fakes struck from this die without the elongated P or damaged I, I don't think we can know for sure whether those flaws were always in the die, whether the die broke on first strike, or whether the die broke after 1,000 strikes.

3. You state in your last post that the original coin is genuine, but you were quite equivoval in your original post in which you left open the question whether it was a host or a fake  If you think a coin is genuine, make it clear; if you think a coin is suspect, look at the arguments for and against (i.e. die differences, not just die similarities). I like N.Igma's suggestion of perhaps using castings of the dies for illustrations rather than photos of coins or  limit yourself to 100% certain fakes like the broken/crystalized example you just shared."


To number 2, yes it is not clear when the dies were damaged but at least some fakes were produced with fresh undamaged dies and if you look only for such die flaws or die breaks all fakes will slipp through that were produced with fresh dies without this damages.

I am aware of this problem, after I realized that some of my first 80 fake dies were transfer dies too I acctually looked for such die flaws or die breaks + for (individual charateristics of the host coins which should not be in the dies) or odd lines on transfer dies made with electroplating.
I was disappointed that die flaws and die breaks did not work for the fakes made from fresh transfer dies and I am looking for ways to condemn them!!!
Individual charateristics of the host coins which should not be in the dies or odd lines on transfer dies made with electroplating would work for all fakes  produced with this fake dies no matter which die state but they are much harder to find Sad

That die flaws or die breaks can be uses to condemn some fakes made with this transfer dies is nothing new for me, added some transfer die fakes made with my transfer dies exactly because of this some month ago. See for example Lipara, becaue of die break or Mamertini because of die flaw.


http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-18321


http://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-18256

The odd lines from electroplating can be seen on the Mamertini  transfer dies, for example left to the first M of Mamertinon.
This stupid lines are sadly often not that good visible on the fakes:(

To number 3, I wrote it as question on purpose and maybe a little bit provocative in the hope to make the reader thinking about why it can not be made from this transfer dies.
Different people have different thoughts, a different way of thinking and a different view = and so some people can see things others can not see, and I hoped that some of you can see someting I can not see !!!!!!!!!!!!!
For me it is and was obvious that this authentic host coin from my first post could not be produced with this dies.
The die flaw argument does not work because it could have been minted from fresh dies without this die flaw.
I wrote already the answer why the coin from my first post is the authentic host, I guess that I missed some more arguments why I can not be from this transfer dies, but doesn t matter.
I hoped that if others think about the same, "how to detect fakes made with transfer dies", that they perhaps could find new arguments and ways to detect them which are so far new to me. 


So far there is nothing new for me and so it is disappointing.




Logged
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2017, 01:25:50 pm »

Quote from: Carausius on February 22, 2017, 07:28:57 am

1. Thank you, DinX, for confirming that the elongated P is in the die and not just a smudge of dirt, as suggested by N.Igma.

Best that we correct this 'alternative fact' presented in the post-truth world that confronts us daily.

I did not make any observation on the origin and nature of the mottling on the grey scale image and most certainly did not suggest it was "a smudge of dirt".

In fact I thought it self evident for anyone viewing the color image of the die surface that the grey scale mottling was the result of the roughness of the die surface which led directly to my comment on the matter of die wear and handling damage after its working life was over and the caution about drwaing conclusions based on the state of the die in it worn and roghly handled state.  For avoidance of doubt I repeat the original comment....

Quote from: Carausius on February 21, 2017, 03:15:11 pm
Any thoughts on my prior post in which I pointed out a difference between the coin and the die?  Based on the difference noted, I don't see how this coin could have struck by this die. Perhaps the coin, or one struck from the same die as the coin, was the host for the transfer die and the P was reengraved during the transfer die preparation.  I see no reason to suspect the coin.

Quote from: Carausius on February 18, 2017, 10:44:10 am
Studying the coin vs. the die, I note that the tail of the P in IMP looks longer on the die (nearly meeting the dot border) than on the coin.  

I think you may be confusing a dark mottled patch (of which there are many) on the grey scale image of die surface with an extension of the darker deeply engraved leg of the P. This mottled patch on the die surface superficially makes the leg of the P appear longer than the true engraved component. Taking this to account the length of the engraved tail or leg of P is identical to that observed on the coin.

We also need to remember that fake dies also wear in use and that the state of the worn fake die in its final form at the end of its working life (as shown here) may not directly reflect the very fine detail of the host or a coin struck earlier in the fake die's life and vice versa. Wear over a fake die's life must be considered a factor in any comparison. Also bulk transport and handling of used dies in a bag of the type shown has the potential to impart damage and fine 'detail' on the transfer die surface that was not present during its use or on the host coin from which it derived. All these factors must be weighed in the consideration.

Suggestion for Din X: It may assist if you were to make Plasticine or molding clay imprints/'strikes' of the dies for comparison, in addition to reversing the die image for comparison to the coin.



Others, most significantly Din X had no problem understanding that which I had written and in fact confirmed it was correct ..

....
I think you may be confusing a dark mottled patch (of which there are many) on the grey scale image of die surface with an extension of the darker deeply engraved leg of the P. This mottled patch on the die surface superficially makes the leg of the P appear longer than the true engraved component. Taking this to account the length of the engraved tail or leg of P is identical to that observed on the coin.

We also need to remember that fake dies also wear in use and that the state of the worn fake die in its final form at the end of its working life (as shown here) may not directly reflect the very fine detail of the host or a coin struck earlier in the fake die's life and vice versa. Wear over a fake die's life must be considered a factor in any comparison. Also bulk transport and handling of used dies in a bag of the type shown has the potential to impart damage and fine 'detail' on the transfer die surface that was not present during its use or on the host coin from which it derived. All these factors must be weighed in the consideration.

Suggestion for Din X: It may assist if you were to make Plasticine or molding clay imprints/'strikes' of the dies for comparison, in addition to reversing the die image for comparison to the coin.



You are correct, something of the die broke out (SHARP OUTLINES) below the P which makes it look longer.
There is a die flaw (sharp outlines) above the I of Caesri and right to the I of Caesari. Die flaw = die is damaged which means that some metal broke out of the die.
This differences Carausius is speaking of are now in the dies because the dies were damaged, they were not in the transfer dies when they were made !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The transfer dies I have are in their lates die state after being used and transported several times, from usage and transport they were damaged and show now differences to their state when they were fresh and unsued.
There were fakes produced before these die flaws appeared in the fake die..........


Either you have chosen to deliberately misrepresent that which was said/written with the intent of clouding the issue or for some personal reason, seeking to undermine credibility, or else its a zero for reading comprehension skill.

I think it most dangerous to misrepresent things like this in when commenting on authenticity issues.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Volodya
Procurator Monetae
Consul
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2017, 01:55:05 pm »


Therefore, I surmise based on the images that pressed rather than struck fakes were the product of these dies.

Therein lies a clue for authentication - the presence of clear evidence of striking on the surfaces such as mint luster, flow lines flan splits etc.  Conversely the absence of such features coupled with a die match is condemnatory. Beware those coins that display (even in images) the flat, lifeless, expressionless surfaces so characteristic of pressed fakes, particularly if of a type represented by one of the  faker's dies in the image heading the thread.

A corollary of the surmise that the die is case hardened bronze is that the die life would be limited as the case hardening is restricted to a thin surface layer, which would readily be broken through and disrupted with use (or rough handling at the end of its life). This means it would quickly develop additional surface details with use that could be imparted to the pressed fake's surface and these surface breaks and defects would develop through the working life of the fake die (nor would these be represented on the host coin for the transfer die).

I'm not aware of a single genuine example of the coin in question, Crawford 546/6, or of its sibling 546/7, that does show even remnants of true luster or flow lines, so I'm not sure that the absence of such is prima facie reason to condemn a given coin of this type. (I'm happy to be proven wrong on this; I'd enjoy seeing such a coin simply on its merits!) Note that I'm talking specifically of the two clasped hands denarii and the related rare quinarius; certainly there exist examples of other Scarpus silver, 546/2 etc, that do retain flow lines and luster. For self-evident historical reasons, the clasped hands pieces were issued in considerable haste as Scarpus desperately tried to convince his beloved cousin Octavian of his undying loyalty. I suspect that they were struck using atypical, perhaps makeshift, technology and never exhibited luster and flow lines, not even on the day they were made.

Phil Davis
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2017, 02:01:46 pm »

I'm not aware of a single genuine example of the coin in question, Crawford 546/6, or of its sibling 546/7, that does show even remnants of true luster or flow lines, so I'm not sure that the absence of such is prima facie reason to condemn a given coin of this type.
Again not what was said. Rather I expressed a general note of in the context of the total fake die set "Beware those coins that display (even in images) the flat, lifeless, expressionless surfaces so characteristic of pressed fakes, particularly if of a type represented by one of the  faker's dies in the image heading the thread. No prima facie condemnation, simply a caution to be extra diligent in authentication under the circumstances identified.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Volodya
Procurator Monetae
Consul
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2017, 02:17:13 pm »

Again not what was said. Rather I expressed a general note of in the context of the total fake die set "Beware those coins that display (even in images) the flat, lifeless, expressionless surfaces so characteristic of pressed fakes, particularly if of a type represented by one of the  faker's dies in the image heading the thread. No prima facie condemnation, simply a caution to be extra diligent in authentication under the circumstances identified.


From your earlier comment: "Conversely the absence of such features coupled with a die match is condemnatory." Emphasis added.

From Dictionary.com: Condemnatory: serving to condemn. That's pretty unambiguous, but whatever, you're welcome to the last word.
Logged

Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1202



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2017, 02:28:18 pm »

Quote
Either you have chosen to deliberately misrepresent that which was said/written with the intent of clouding the issue or for some personal reason, seeking to undermine credibility, or else its a zero for reading comprehension skill.


Thank you for your kind comments.  No bad intent or ill will on my part. Maybe it was zero reading comprehension skill.  I took your comment to mean that I was seeing something that was not really in the die ("confusing a dark mottled patch (of which there are many) on the grey scale image").  I concede that you didn't say "smudge of dirt", but your words suggested what I noted was of mirage quality and of no importance in the analysis.  DinX's subsequent photo showing a fake struck from these die with the long P tail suggests otherwise.
Logged

n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2017, 02:54:34 pm »

Thanks for the clarification and confirmation that no ill will was intended.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
n.igma
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


Life is bigger than a Tweet.


« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 03:02:00 pm »

From your earlier comment: "Conversely the absence of such features coupled with a die match is condemnatory." Emphasis added.

Which undoubtedly it is with one exception, that of the host coin. Of course we are talking here of an identical die match to the fake transfer die as opposed to the multitude of coins struck from the original authentic die with different centering, progressive die wear, variable strike, etc.
Logged

All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.
Din X
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2017, 09:26:11 am »

Last parcel arrived today, only 66 die pairs and not 80 as they promised me Sad

The only thing interesting and good was the steel die picture 4.

With best regards,
Logged
Molinari
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3952


Herakles cheated!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2017, 09:46:21 am »

Thank you- that's the first I've seen of the Panormos bronze die, though I have seen an uptick in appearances of this rare type.  I'll have to look for some matches in my records.
Logged

carthago
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


Nervos belli, pecuniam


« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2017, 01:58:55 pm »

Din X, your work on this is tremendous.  Thank you for your contribution to our understanding of the forgery network we face
Logged
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9350


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2017, 04:34:59 pm »

Fake coin report(s) please.

I am wondering if these dies are strong or fragile? Are they strong enough to strike huge numbers or are they likely to be damaged after only a small number of strikes?
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
traveler
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 344



« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2017, 06:32:22 pm »

To sum up from reading the thread:

1. Transfer dies exist for certain issues. Since they're transfer dies the fakes cannot be easily condemned by incorrect style, assuming that the host is authentic. The fake may be suspected because of missing elements in the transfer die (like an incomplete dotted border or die damage) but this is not conclusive. After all ancient coins struck from the same ancient dies will be expected to share the same marks due to die damage.

2. It looks like these transfer dies were made to be hand struck and not pressed. So unevenness in strike impression can't be used to possibly identify a fake.

3. Fakes may or may not be overstruck on authentic ancient coins. But if they are then the metal composition cannot be used to identify a fake as well.

So, how does one identify a fake struck from transfer dies? To me the only way seems to be to study the transfer die design, and look for elements that were not present in the ancient die but were created due to the ancient striking process (and recreated in the transfer die). But is it possible??
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Fake Coin Reports, Notorious Fake Sellers, and Discussions (Moderators: maridvnvm, Ilya Prokopov)  |  Topic: Octavianus with M. Pinarius Scarpus transfer die + host « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.572 seconds with 70 queries.