Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 09:00:54 am
Search Calendar Login Register

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Authentication, Fakes and Frauds (Moderators: maridvnvm, Ilya Prokopov)  |  Topic: Verus aureii: see the difference 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: Verus aureii: see the difference  (Read 4244 times)
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5662


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2009, 06:53:22 am »

It is PERFECTLY NORMAL to have a different reverse die with the same overs dies and vice versa.   As far as I can tell, this thread and this issue is all nonsense.  I am perfectly willing to reconsider but someone has to make this very simple and clear for me so I get it, because I don't.   
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2009, 07:15:02 am »

In short:
1. The obverse dies of G.2005 is different. At least, you believe, Joe (Curtis still did not revise his opinion).
2. The question: is the reverse die different?
To answer, one can make a look on this arrangement (2nd coin is G.2005).
Logged
xintaris75
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 359



« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2009, 07:36:54 am »

It's normal, when dies differs like at these examples (same obvs. diff. revs.)
 But it's not normal, when dies differs like G.2005 with rest.
So, they are (G2005&rest) differs like prototype and copy.
Logged

Ω ΖΕΥ, ΠΑΤΕΡ ΖΕΥ,
ΣΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ.
ΣΥ Δ' ΕΡΓ' ΕΠ' ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΟΡΑΪΣ
ΛΕΩΡΓΑ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΜΙΣΤΑ.
ΣΟΙ ΔΕ ΘΗΡΙΩΝ ΥΒΡΙΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΙ.
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5662


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2009, 10:31:00 am »

2. The question: is the reverse die different?

No it is the same die.  And I mean I think it is the exact same die, not a modern copy. 
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2009, 11:39:17 am »

And how do you explain that the space between the head of the soldier and the legend is much more narrow?
How it may happen that a tiny scratch ever visible became a detail, almost of the same deepness as the engraved part of the die?
How it may happen that its upper part dissappeared on the later state of the die (the 4th  image) and the space became again larger?

On other coins there are no such peculiarities.
There are several other differences. Probably, one did not inspect  so attentively the differences of such  minor details if it would be just a coin, but the coin is under strong suspision: Curtis refused to believe that its obverse is done by a freehand! 
Logged
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5662


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2009, 02:00:51 pm »

When Curtis tells me this is a fake coin, I will accept that it is fake

The scratch is still just a scratch.  A scratch can become filled with dirt and disappear. 

A double strike, uneven strike, bolder or weaker strike, slipping strike, die wear, die damage, die repair, or even a different camera angle can make a small feature appear a tiny bit closer. 

These are just photos and I believe condemnation of this coin could only be done by someone with considerable skill and the coin in hand.     

It is possible the coin is fake but I really think it is more likely these photo mosaics are just misleading.   I suspect if we group other various die matched aurei photos, we can come up with the same type of results again and again.  I specifically say aurei because I think gold flows a little different when struck and may be slightly more susceptible to these "inexplicable differences" but it might be true for silver and bronze too.   

Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
*Alex
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1544


Ne Iupiter quidem omnibus placet.


« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2009, 03:35:38 am »


The scratch is still just a scratch.  A scratch can become filled with dirt and disappear. 


If we are talking about the same thing, I don't think that the scratch is a scratch. It seems obvious to me that it is a detail of the soldier's cloak, better struck on coin two.


Alex.
Logged

Molinari
Magistratus Optima Lege II
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2009, 07:48:18 am »

Wouldn't the differences in the scratch (above soldier's shoulder) help to authenticate this coin?  I'd imagine that if such a small scratch were exactly the same on each coin then we should be very concerned.  Right?


Nick
Logged

Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5662


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2009, 08:25:48 am »

For clairity...

Some people believe a scratch in the original genuine Roman mint die and was erroneously turned into a feature on dies by a modern forger who, working with a scratched coin, mistook the scratch for a feature of the cloak.  The coin made by the forger has been nicknamed G2005.  These fake dies are so close to the originals they must have been initially using a genuine coin and some transfer process.  But they are different, so they must have been touched up by hand engraving.  The touch up was probably done either to cover up imperfections of the initial transfer process or was done to create the impression that the coin was from a different die.  What was a scratch on the seed coin became a feature of the figure's cloak on the fake die.  This would of course mean the obverse die must also be a forgery.   The obverse on one coin, nicknamed G2005, is also different from the other obverses but is also is very similar to obverses on genuine coins, supporting the theory that it was struck by a forged die made by a transfer process and touched up by hand engraving. 

Is there a viable strike sequence of the coins and of events that explains the changes in the dies and these coins over time?  Some people think not, they believe coin G2005 does not fit any viable sequence and therefore must be a forgery. 

We have four possibilities for the coin called G2005:

(1) Genuine.  Different or re-engraved obverse die.  On the reverse, a scratch grew over time and may have become filled later. 
(2) Genuine.  Different or re-engraved obverse die.  On the reverse, a feature of a figure's cloak became filled over time and was possibly cleaned out later. 
(3) Genuine.  Different or re-engraved obverse die.  On the reverse, a scratch grew over time, was re-engraved as a feature of the cloak during a die repair at the Roman mint, and may have become filled later.   
(4) Fake.  It is a modern forgery.  The dies were made using a genuine coin and a transfer process, then touched up by hand. 

The differences on the reverses are not at all convincing to me from these photos.  The changes in the scratch/cloak feature seem unimportant to me and not any indication of forgery.  The obverses differences actually concern me more but are easily explained if they are simply two different dies. 

I am not saying all these coins MUST be genuine.  There are a few members of this board who, if they condemned the coin, I would accept their condemnation immediately.  I am saying the arguments here so far have not convinced me that the G2005 coin MUST be fake
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Dino
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2009, 09:52:53 am »

How about a slightly different explanation?

I'm absolutely no expert in this, but I think I have a reasonable explanation for the pictures.  If I'm off base, please rip it apart.  I'd love to learn.

The basis for my theory is that it's my understanding that as dies are struck and experience wear that they also "mushroom" and expand a bit.  See photo of ancient die below demonstrating the "mushroom" effect.  (Note the "mushroom effect" is much greater on the end that is struck with the hammer, but the other end displaces and changes shape a bit as well).

So what happens if we re-order the blown up pics of the coins in Numeranius's post above?

Picture 1:  die is new.  Legend is close to soldier's head.  Feature behind soldier is clearly a cloak over his soldier.

Picture 2: die is experiencing wear.  Die is expanding.  Legend is further away from soldier's head.  Rear of cloak is flattening and/or filling in and appears smaller.  You're also starting to see some flow lines.

Picture 3:  Die is even more worn.  Flow lines are clearer.  Legend is even further away.  Rear of cloak is filling or flattening more and is now interrupted by flow lines.

Picture 4:  Die wear continues.  Legend even away from soldier further due to continued expansion.  Flow lines even clearer.  Rear of cloak even lower, looks like a scratch.  Due to die expansion, arm is narrower as engraved part of die is shallower.

Yes?  No?  Maybe?
Logged

xintaris75
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 359



« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2009, 12:42:16 pm »

Idea is nice, but i doubt, what this coin struck from fresh die.
Logged

Ω ΖΕΥ, ΠΑΤΕΡ ΖΕΥ,
ΣΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ.
ΣΥ Δ' ΕΡΓ' ΕΠ' ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΟΡΑΪΣ
ΛΕΩΡΓΑ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΜΙΣΤΑ.
ΣΟΙ ΔΕ ΘΗΡΙΩΝ ΥΒΡΙΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΙ.
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2009, 12:57:30 pm »

I also think that the idea of the die evolution is interesting and merits to be explore thoroughly.
Though I also do not think that it is the fresh die.
To check the hypothesis one can try to put in order these guys. 
Logged
Dino
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2009, 01:44:07 pm »

If we accept the idea that dies distort with use, then doesn't that really answer the question?

If someone is making high quality cast copies of an original coin, then the "twins" will be identical won't thye?

Struck coins, however, will vary with wear. 
Logged

Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5662


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2009, 02:38:29 pm »

If there is any merit to this idea then you should be able to put the coins in the same chronological order regardless of what small area you look at.  And if one coin is fake, it will be the one coin will not fit in the same order each time. 

Or, the different areas will appear to be in different orders and all this is random variation in metal flow, lighting, camera angles, etc. and completely unimportant. 
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Dino
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2009, 03:39:17 pm »

If there is any merit to this idea then you should be able to put the coins in the same chronological order regardless of what small area you look at.  And if one coin is fake, it will be the one coin will not fit in the same order each time. 

Or, the different areas will appear to be in different orders and all this is random variation in metal flow, lighting, camera angles, etc. and completely unimportant. 

Or some combination of the two.

I found a site that has published die link studies  of Traianus Decius Double Sesterces  and Consecration Antoniniani of the Mid Third Century A.D (and describes the cultivation of carnivorous plants).

http://qblay.com/

I've posted a collage of supposedly identical reverses below from one of the coins below.  Here's the link to that:  http://qblay.com/DeciusDS/show-links.htm

The Sesterces are easier to see.  Here's the die link report:

http://qblay.com/DeciusDS/index.html

Here are the links for a specific coin. 

http://qblay.com/DiviSeries/English/busca-links.php?CoinName=87-002

In looking at all these, I see variations.  Some of them are similar to the variations described in this thread.  Based on that, I think that you can't conclude that the aureii that are the subject of this thread are fakes based on the pics posted by Numerianus.  I don't know if the differences are based on die distortion, photographic distortion, lighting distortion or some combination of the above.  But it certainly seems to suggest that you will see differences in coins struck from the same dies.
Logged

xintaris75
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 359



« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2009, 03:58:24 pm »

So, where in this "line" a place for this coin?
Logged

Ω ΖΕΥ, ΠΑΤΕΡ ΖΕΥ,
ΣΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ.
ΣΥ Δ' ΕΡΓ' ΕΠ' ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΟΡΑΪΣ
ΛΕΩΡΓΑ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΜΙΣΤΑ.
ΣΟΙ ΔΕ ΘΗΡΙΩΝ ΥΒΡΙΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΙ.
jmuona
Procurator Caesaris
Consul
****
Online Online

Posts: 295

I love this forum!


« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2009, 01:17:46 am »

In my view, looking at this particular last image when making it larger, it is clearly smoothed on the right side of the coin on both obverse and reverse. This looks like image manipulation?
s.
jyrki muona
Logged

Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2009, 01:49:09 am »

If we accept the idea that dies distort with use, then doesn't that really answer the question?
If someone is making high quality cast copies of an original coin, then the "twins" will be identical won't thye?
Struck coins, however, will vary with wear. 
To my mind, the comparison of 6 images of the king shows that the 4th coin (G2005) cannot be struck from  the eariest state
of the die because we can see only a part of the fold. More likely it was "enhanced" by someone who, probably, was not aware that
there are coins on which the whole lenth of the fold is visible.

I think that what we see is consistent with the fabrication of copy of the die using a photo- or termohardening plastic, seemingly used
by dentists. I do not know how good it can be but I  hold in hand such a die.
 Last month one of the members of our local numismatic club  shown a plastic die made
someone in Nancy in his presence in a few minutes from a medal, just to show how efficient is the procedure.
People were frightened... I am sure that where are Forum memebers who know much more about this.
 
Logged
xintaris75
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 359



« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2009, 05:09:39 am »

I'm absolutely agree with Joe
due a board have some PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS, we must to wait, when they are give his opinions about this story. Another, a problem will be "freezed"...
I'm understand, what expert's opinion must to be well cosidered, and can't be fast, but finally they are must to publish this.
Logged

Ω ΖΕΥ, ΠΑΤΕΡ ΖΕΥ,
ΣΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ.
ΣΥ Δ' ΕΡΓ' ΕΠ' ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΟΡΑΪΣ
ΛΕΩΡΓΑ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΜΙΣΤΑ.
ΣΟΙ ΔΕ ΘΗΡΙΩΝ ΥΒΡΙΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΚΗ ΜΕΛΕΙ.
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2009, 03:34:27 pm »

Well, now the experts have a material to think and exercise their skill. i can provide a high resolution photos of one of this coins believed to be genuine. 
Please, tell us whether this is a typical picture one  can see looking at the surface of an aureus in a highg grade of conservation or you can see something unusual. 
I address to Curtis and Barry who, seemingly, has a vast experience with aureii.
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


I love this forum!


« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2009, 02:18:15 am »

The stock still last! One more "standard" C.158 FDC to compare with G2005. The coin is now on sixbid.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Authentication, Fakes and Frauds (Moderators: maridvnvm, Ilya Prokopov)  |  Topic: Verus aureii: see the difference « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.354 seconds with 66 queries.