I informed the
auction house about the coin. Their reply:
"Regarding
Romulus Augustus lot 392: we know the opinion of
Kent, but the coin is published as genuine in a book written by
Italian scholars (mentioned in text),
overstruck and maybe of hybrid-barbaric
type, to mind the historical period and the vicissitudes of the time.
Also another
Italian scholar, Ladich, who has worked very closely with
Kent, takes into consideration the existence of
hybrid types in this particular historical moment; moreover, the specimen is not on the historical list of
forgeries made by Caprara and
Cigoi.
It can be said that the coin is now historicized, from its publication and its
provenance, at least since 1984: we could not refuse it to the consignor, a great
German collector and expert, without a valid reason. At most we should have indicated it as
barbaric hybrid, but as it was not published as such, the consignor was very opposed to.
The photograph you sent me is clearly a forgery made by the original one in our
auction; attached another forgery made the same forger, with the same
reverse die, but with an
obverse of
Aelia Pulcheria.
However, the benefit of the doubt is lawful, and if objective objections arise, it will be withdrawn from the
auction."
The photo he attached (below) is just as bad as the
Romulus specimen. "These others are
fake, but ours is the real one". They are both jokes, hardly better than our famous 'Mr. Tooly'; the horrible
style condemns them both.
Kent was completely right (
RIC 10, pp. 211-12; I worked with
Kent, too, you know, back in the 80s). Someone was just robbed, bigly.
Richard
Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers
