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.
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
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 they do on some of their high quality fakes
. So no convincing flan
Picture 5 my fake Milita coin, for which an ancient coin was used as planchet
(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.
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
shap and patina
will not help
because they sometimes use anchient coins as planchet