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.