Problem coins for sale on Catawiki

[Michael L4]

I recently began to look at "catawiki" online auctions, as an alternative to eBay.

Unfortunately, my first purchase a couple of weeks' ago included a good quality fake (so it seems to me) of a Caracalla denarius (on which I may write a separate report).

I naively had some confidence in this site, since the auctions are overseen by "experts", who would presumably be on the lookout for fakes. The seller in question had a good feedback rating and a significant sales record.

I have been looking at the Ancient Coins auction that is forthcoming on July 4, 2017.

I have found several coins for sale which also do not appear to be genuine. So far I have looked only a few coins.

My research so far indicates:

1. Lot 44: A Nero As (listed as a Dupondius RIC 543), which corresponds exactly to the reproduction (of RIC 352) shown in the Fake Coin reports ("Remoneda Reproduction").

[WRONG LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN - SEE CORRECT LINK IN POST BELOW]

2. Lot 61: Antoninus Pius Denarius (RIC 84), which corresponds exactly to the image of the same coin on the "Wildwinds" database (this is of a coin sold by Harlan J Berk with a starting bid of $175):

3. I believe that lots 36 (Tiberius denarius) and 49 (Domitian denarius) may also not be authentic. Lot 17 (Republican denarius Gens Furia) may be heavily tooled. Other lots are also suspect, but I have not formed a view on them.

I have sent a message to the Catawiki Auctioneers about Lot 44. There is no obvious system for reporting a problem with the coin (as on eBay where there is the option of reporting a coin as a "replica or reproduction").

I hope that readers find this helpful, and will look at auctions on this website to assess if problems such as these are common.

Michael  

[peterpil19]

Hi Michael,

Welcome to FORVM.

I concur re the Nero coin. For this coin, your post above is referencing the incorrect fake report. I think it is because you copied and pasted the url in your browser which does not work in the case of fake reports which you navigated to through searching. In each fake report there is an option to show more information about the file and clicking on this reveals the actual url for the report.

Here is the link I think you meant to refer to: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-10992
Also, the obverse of the Nero on this one looks very similar (and is potentially a die match):  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-12577

For the Antoninus Pius, is it not the exact same coin which is on wildwinds, just potentially cleaned? It looks identical in all respects to my eyes. What makes you say this one is not authentic?

For the last coin it would help if you posted the link.

Peter

[Joe Sermarini]

1. Almost certainly fake.
2. They are the same coin.
3. ....

Please review the rules of the Fake Coin Reports, Notorious Fake Sellers, and Discussions: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=80768.0

We do not name sellers here unless they are on the Notorious Fake Seller List (NFSL) or are being nominated for the NFSL. The ONLY time we link to seller's listings here is when nominating them for the NFSL.

By posting those links you just raised the Google rank of Catawiki for searches for ancient coins.

[Michael L4]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for guiding me on how to reference files in the fakes report: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-10992 .

I attach two files (actually 3 please ignore any duplication). The first is of the two coins together. I think it is clear this is the same coin. There is a difference in how the Obverse has been photographed: In the Wildwinds photo the Obverse is slightly tilted. Both reverses are photographed flat (making comparison easier). The lighting in the two pictures is similar but not identical. Obviously the catawiki seller has made the error of not adjusting for white balance etc. so that the photograph of silver comes out golden. The Wildwinds picture is, I think, in black and white.

The second file is the same comparison, with areas marked on the catawiki coin which I think show small but significant differences from the Wildwinds coin. These are the kinds of differences one would expect between an original coin and a very good cast copy. I would also note that the catawiki coin has that overall slight "thickening and flattening" effect seen in casts. Moreover, it may lack the "edge luster" which is seen in original strikes.

One must make the major qualification that neither photograph is sufficiently sharp to show all details. Moreover, differences in lighting, resolution, camera types and so can bring out different features in the same coin.

To these physical considerations, one must add the thought that this coin was sold in 2006 by Harlan J Berk, possibly on eBay (perhaps for over $175). It appears that the coin has, after 11 years, made its way to a dealer/collector in Spain who is selling it on catawiki. This is perfectly possible (every coin has provenance and often trades). Nonetheless, it is usually not so easy to find a specific coin with a quick search. Moreover, an extensive search shows that the Wildwinds coin may be just about the best example out there, and if one wanted a good coin as the basis for a cast, this would be it.

The coin is moderately scarce, with examples selling for between $100 and $150 depending on condition.

In addition, one should take into account that the same the seller is passing off a crude Remoneda reproduction as genuine (also it is an As not a Dupondius - which would make it an extreme rarity rather than quite common). BTW, the bidding on the Nero reproduction has reached $171 ($46 on the Antoninus Pius).

One must conclude that the Antoninus Pius denarius raises questions, no more. Physical examination of the coin would be needed for further comment (or the owner of the Wildwinds coin - if different - could come forward!).

Thanks again for your input.

Best regards,

Michael

PS: I apologize again for not following all guidelines in my first post on this discussion board!

[Michael L4]

I have amended my original post to remove links and reference to a specific seller (who was not however named by me). This should conform to FORUM Guidelines. Without time now to create new coin image files I hope readers can find the catawiki Auction and Lots for themselves (through Google) and that my new post / reply contains full information about one of the coins in question.

Michael

[okidoki]

did you mail them?
they reply within 2-3 days

best

eric

[peterpil19]

One must conclude that the Antoninus Pius denarius raises questions, no more. Physical examination of the coin would be needed for further comment (or the owner of the Wildwinds coin - if different - could come forward!).

The coin appears identical in all respects. I think the vendor has used a photo of an authentic coin. Whether or not it is the coin the vendor is actually selling could be a different story.

PS: I apologize again for not following all guidelines in my first post on this discussion board!

No need to worry. Many of us get reminders from time to time. The rules are well thought out and in terms of their applicability to the Fake Board are for the benefit / protection of those posting too.

Peter

[Joe Sermarini]

The differences you circled in the different photos of the Antoninus Pius denarius are almost certainly due to lighting and camera angle. On this discussion board you can find examples of much more apparently dramatic differences, that have been confirmed to be photos of the same coin with only different camera angle and lighting. Even a cast and its seed coin or two casts from the same mold are not this identical. They really must be the same coin.

[Michael L4]

Hi,

I agree that different photographs can greatly alter the apparent features of coins. Nonetheless, I feel that in the case of a few elements that I have shown (particularly small surface protrusions which cast shadows), these should have been evident in both sets of photographs. The lighting and other conditions were not seemingly so different. The differences mentioned are more apparent at higher resolutions.

However, I accept your view as very legitimate: the same coin that appeared as the featured coin on Wildwinds has now been sold on catawiki.

Thanks for taking notice of this!

Michael
 

[Din X]

Hi,

I agree that different photographs can greatly alter the apparent features of coins. Nonetheless, I feel that in the case of a few elements that I have shown (particularly small surface protrusions which cast shadows), these should have been evident in both sets of photographs. The lighting and other conditions were not seemingly so different. The differences mentioned are more apparent at higher resolutions.

However, I accept your view as very legitimate: the same coin that appeared as the featured coin on Wildwinds has now been sold on catawiki.

Thanks for taking notice of this!

Michael
 

How is the weight of both coins?
If it is the same coin and both sellers are not too stupid to weigh correct (sadly many are), the weight should be about the same!!!
Cast fakes do weight less due to metal shrinkage when colling down in the mould, weight loss is for silver 5-10% depending on which casting method is used.
So if both did weigh correct it can be siad if cast or the same coin. 

[okidoki]

did you mail them?
they reply within 2-3 days

best

eric

Michel did you mail them?

best

Eric

[Hardy S]

Unfortunately, it does not surprise me that there are many fakes on Catawiki. My experience shows that the so-called expert auctioneers have no expertise in their respective fields on many occasions at all.
They cannot distinguish real items from fake. Sometimes it seems they have no idea about what they are doing, and their price estimates have nothing to do with the reality.
Recently I read an article on smartshoppingschool.com and it correlates with my experience. It shows how unprofessional these "expert" auctioneers are. Although this article is mainly about jewelry and gemstones it gives good insight into how those "experts" work. It cannot be excluded that they benefit from allowing sales of fake items...
If you would like to find out more here is the link: https://www.smartshoppingschool.com/catawiki-online-auction-safe-haven-for-fake-jewelry/

[CL]

I have quite some experience with catawiki, not only in the numismatic world but especially in ww2 military, they have so called 'experts' which are people who have absolutely no knowledge in the area, and most likely just did a course about antique or some other general course. The amount of fakes I saw in the ww2 military department is extremely disturbing, fake medals, fake badges, fake uniforms, fake caps, I bought in total 5 fake items (they looked authentic on the pictures) from them in a time span of a couple of months. Their customer support is horrible, you need to wait atleast 30 to 40 minutes before someone picks up the phone. Then when you tell them the item is fake they say it is not possible because the 'expert' said it is authentic. While me as experience saw in my own hand it is fake together with many other experienced collectors who agreed.

Eventually it was that bad I had to go to a legal counsellor, and I eventually got all my money as an independent expert got hired in and agreed the items were fake. In other words, stay away from catawiki, they are untrustworthy and there is on the end no buyers protection for fake stuff, their 'experts' are always right in their eyes.

EDIT: I just saw someone bumped this thread from over a year ago, anyway my comment could still be usefull.