EID MAR denarius

[Potator II]

Not the ususal EID MAR denarius, so well preserved that it cannot be genuine (too good to be true).
This one is currently for sale on a famous internet site, so worn that I imagine people will think on the contrary : "too worn to be fake".

What do you think friends ?

Regards
Potator

[areich]

I think the coin is genuine and the seller is good.
In fact, I'm the high bidder!
Of course I won't be for long. 

[Potator II]

I think the coin is genuine and the seller is good.
In fact, I'm the high bidder!
Of course I won't be for long. 

Especially after I have advertised for it 

[areich]

I don't think I can be considered a 'serious bidder' for this coin.

[Andrew McCabe]

Not the ususal EID MAR denarius, so well preserved that it cannot be genuine (too good to be true).
This one is currently for sale on a famous internet site, so worn that I imagine people will think on the contrary : "too worn to be fake".

What do you think friends ?

Regards
Potator

It strikes me as possibly a 19th century fantasy, a cast tourist fake complete with hole, sold at somewhere the guide says was the grave of Brutus or some such nonsense. It could be an ancient forgery but since the style eg lettering, portrait, is entirely wrong, it is not "after the real thing" and thus fairly worthless even if ancient, which it may not be (but not necessarily modern either). I guess it falls into the category of "unproven, but not after the genuine coin".

At risk of re-opening the long thread of a couple of months back I guess I would classify ancient plated coins into three categories:

- the very exceptional cases of coins which may (I repeat, may) have been struck at a mint, with some form of official sanction. We are talking about a number of types you can count on your hands, from all of antiquity. A potential candidate being Cornuficius plated coins which turn up in usually high proportions, see Phil Davis' article on the subject here:
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Studies.html#Cornuficius

- the run-of-the-mill ancient forgeries which used dies made from impressions of real coins, sometimes in hybrid combination. At least in these cases the dies actually touched a real coin made in the mint. Generally such coins are authentically ancient. These are the vast vast majority of ancient plated coins, 95%+

- coins with specially engraved dies or moulds, of entirely the wrong style, and either struck-plated or cast. Such as the EID MAR illustrated. These to me are pretty worthless because you can't really tell whether the engraver ever touched a coin. Many indeed are cast rather than struck. Perhaps the design is taken by a 19th century Athenian blacksmith from a picture he saw in a book, to produce tourist fakes. Look at it this way, if one was going to make such a thing in ancient times, making your own casts, bearing in mind that these are very uncommon compared to the run of the mill forgeries that used real coins to make dies, what's the chance of it being from an EID MAR design rather than from a L.PISO FRVGI? Pretty low. I don't see thousands of L.PISO FRVGI in this style (or indeed any), whereas run-of-the-mill plated L.PISO FRVGI are quite common. It just doesn't come across as an object where the maker ever touched a real coin.

Unprovable but thumbs down from me.

[Andrew McCabe]

In perhaps one of the greatest oversights in numismatic history, I completely forgot that I had a photo, which I took myself, of the EID MAR denarius ex my own coin collection some dozen years ago, until I stumbled across it by accident this morning. It's not the best EID MAR in the world, indeed it is the worst, without exception, of the hundred or so known good-silver examples. Here it is for you all to grimace at. I've now restored it into my collection of Brutus and Cassius coins, which has long been waiting for it to come home. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/sets/72157615124858197/detail/

Susan Headley wrote a good piece about this coin type; the coin picture includes her words below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/4011612774

None of this casts any light on the desirability, ancientness or otherwise of the OP's posted EID MAR.

[Anachoret]

Not the ususal EID MAR denarius, so well preserved that it cannot be genuine (too good to be true).
This one is currently for sale on a famous internet site, so worn that I imagine people will think on the contrary : "too worn to be fake".

What do you think friends ?

Regards
Potator

I think it "too worn that authenticity is indemonstrable by any attributes used in such case" 

[cliff_marsland]

I don't claim to be a super-expert, but the bust on what's left of the one on the internet site just looks strange.  I would stay far away.  I do not buy any coin on ebay, and I only buy expensive coins from reputable dealers who have a lifetime authenticity guarantee.

I don't think Andrew M has any reason to be reticent about his EID MAR.  It's far less ugly than the verbal description he gave of it a few weeks ago.  I would have been proud to own it, and such a coin, no matter how worn, entitles one to lifetime bragging rights (I know I would).  It would have been worth the purchase price for that alone.  I wouldn't sell my L. Servius Rufus for any price, as getting another one in decent shape would be hard to do.

[xintaris75]

I do not buy any coin on ebay, and I only buy expensive coins from reputable dealers who have a lifetime authenticity guarantee.

This seller is OK, and he have lifetime warranty.

[areich]

Still, I'm sweating over here. 

[Dino]

This seller ... have lifetime warranty.

Which is great as long it's not the lifetime of Brutus.  Because that has expired.     Good luck on the bid Andreas.

The lettering on the obverse looks thicker and blockier than what you'd expect to see, but compare with example number 4 on Wildwinds:

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s1439.html

[Lloyd Taylor]

I suggest that the answer to the question of authenticity is in the form, shape and metal "displacement" of the "punched" hole in the coin. To my mind, the "deformation" associated with this hole is inexplicable other than arising from an adaptation to a mould for the purposes of adding an aura of authenticity to a cast.

[Pscipio]

The first coin was in a public auction of a German auction house that took place the last days. It was estimated at 300 EUR, but apparently remained unsold - for very good reasons, I think.

Well, now it fetches more on ebay.

Lars

[Jay GT4]

The first coin was in a public auction of a German auction house that took place the last days. It was estimated at 300 EUR, but apparently remained unsold - for very good reasons, I think.

Well, now it fetches more on ebay.

Lars

That says it all!

[FORVM AUCTIONS]

The edges, punch deformation, letter detail, portrait detail, are all unnatural. I wouldn't hold my breath for it being genuine.  

But the one Andrew showed, that looks pretty good. That's quite an honest specimen, if the adjective makes sense.  I wouldn't sweat paying a fortune on a VF or better specimen, but i'd be thrilled getting one in near-slug grade.

[xintaris75]

This part of rim loks very strange for ancient fourree coin...

[commodus]

I do not buy any coin on ebay, and I only buy expensive coins from reputable dealers who have a lifetime authenticity guarantee.

To each his own but, for the record, there are MANY reputable sellers on ebay who offer such guarantees, Forvm among them, as well many other highly respected dealers (though feel I shouldn't name them out of resepct for Joe). Indeed, a number of very reputable ebay sellers are members of this forum.
Granted, there are also many questionable sellers on ebay, as elsewhere, but the key to finding good coins is not paying expensive prices but rather having a thorough knowledge of what you're buying.
Just because of a few bad apples I wouldn't be so dismissive of the whole barrell. I have bought some very fine coins from ebay sellers for very good prices, all quite genuine. I have also been savvy enough to know what to avoid. Price is not always an indicator of genuineness by any means. I've seen many a bargain rarity and many an expensive fake.

[cliff_marsland]

I don't mean to hijack the thread to pro or con ebay.  I didn't count Forum, Harlan Berk, etc, as they're legit dealers who happen to have an outlet on ebay.  In the ultra-remote chance I bid on something on ebay, I would be comfortable to buy from them.

My main aversion aside from authenticity questions is that I don't like auctions in general.  Generally, if a coin, or anything is on auction, (ebay, CNG, any auction)  I'm far less likely to bid on it.  If it isn't a fixed price, I don't need it.  I haven't even looked at ebay in a year, and I haven't bought anything from there for about 3 years.  I hate the uncertainty, it's usually not a good deal, especially not from the traditional auction houses,  (one of my cornerstones of buying is I never buy anything unless I think it's a good deal, or at least market price), and I don't like to tie up money and wait a long time for something I may or may not win.

Very few of my coins (a guesstimate less than 1% of my coins come from auctions, and maybe 3% came from unsold auction lots at a fixed price.

I do occasionally bid on some transcription discs in my old time radio hobby (not on ebay), but it's a rarity, and they're generally not very high bids.  I bid and won a pair of rare Green Hornet discs for $50, and a Sam Spade for $21, but the rest of the winning bids were just low-ball bids in case something didn't get bid on.

0% of my antique radios came from ebay or auctions.

I'm not putting down people who buy stuff on ebay at all, it's just not something I do.

[bpmurphy]

As for the coin that started this thread, I doubt it's ancient. The style is wrong, the lettering is wrong, the flan is wrong, the dagger's on the back are simple crosses, not daggers, the portrait look more like Abe Lincoln than Brutus. Clearly not official, clearly not a cast of an authentic coin, almost certainly not an ancient fourre as the style is too divergent from an original.

Barry Murphy

[dougsmit]

The original photo as posted shows absolutely no sign of being fourree.  If fourree, the core should be obvious in the hole if nowhere else.  For a struck fourree to retain seamless and unpeeled silver surfaces with so little detail would strike me as amazing.   Unfortunately we still have those who use the term 'fourree' for any kind of fake and the error leads them to absurd discussions about coins being cast and fourree at the same time.  Brutus coins of all types are known in fourree versions (most, at least, unofficial and ancient) but this is no fourree.   EID MAR denarii are documented as to dies used so any official coin should be able to be shown to link to other known examples.  If it is a cast fake made from an original coin, it should be possible to identify the dies that produced that original coin.  If this is not possible, the remaining option is 'original', but fake, artwork.

Is there an online resource showing the known dies?  

[commodus]

Point taken, Cliff.
Most of what I buy are actually fixed price coins as well, but...
I'm just saying that while I understand the caveats about ebay (and there are many, to be sure), one can't tar all the sellers with the same brush.

That said, I will go out on a limb here and say I have my doubts that the Eid Mar is a fake. I see no convincing evidence of it whatsoever from the photos. The wear is too great for the arguments about lettering and style to hold water. I could well be wrong but I suspect the real deal, albeit a mighty, mighty poor one. It is not the sort of thing I would object to purchasing on a gamble (though not for a great deal of money, which probably rules that gamble out).

[areich]

That'll teach me not to be too trusting and to pay more attention to the difference between
'well-known' and 'reputable'. 

[Pscipio]

commodus,

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same coin (the first one in this thread), but Barry nicely pointed out why it looks highly suspect.

Lars

[bpmurphy]

Really Commodus, you see no problems with the style and attribute any style problems to wear?

How many of these have you handled? I've handled around 25, maybe a few more, (including Andrew's that I bought at the 1992 New York International) and a new one yesterday.

Did you look at the Cahn die study? I did and this coin isn't close to any of the published examples. Didn't need to look but did just in case.

How do you explain the crosses that are supposed to be daggers? Let's assume for a minute that the daggers are just so worn that they now look like crosses. Why then doesn't the "dagger" on the right not have the normal knob in the center of the grip that all authentic examples have (the reverse of these show two different daggers, the one on the left with a plain grip with a T shaped pommel, the one on the right with a knob on the grip and knobbed pommel). Where's Brutus' ear? Wear can't explain the huge D in EID that's almost as large as the pileus. Wear can't explaing the huge jaw line. How did Brutus' neck wear almost away, yet the high points are still raised and the reverse is VF from the standpoint of wear? The L (in L PLAET) and B (in BRVT) in the obverse legend are too close together, wear couldn't have pushed them together.

I looked at the seller's other items, at least his thumbnails, and he looks like a reliable seller.

But you're free to buy it if you think it's OK.

Barry Murphy

[Andrew McCabe]

The original photo as posted shows absolutely no sign of being fourree.  If fourree, the core should be obvious in the hole if nowhere else.  For a struck fourree to retain seamless and unpeeled silver surfaces with so little detail would strike me as amazing.   Unfortunately we still have those who use the term 'fourree' for any kind of fake and the error leads them to absurd discussions about coins being cast and fourree at the same time.  Brutus coins of all types are known in fourree versions (most, at least, unofficial and ancient) but this is no fourree.   EID MAR denarii are documented as to dies used so any official coin should be able to be shown to link to other known examples.  If it is a cast fake made from an original coin, it should be possible to identify the dies that produced that original coin.  If this is not possible, the remaining option is 'original', but fake, artwork.
Is there an online resource showing the known dies?  

For clarification Doug, I did not intend to suggest that the third of my categories (wrong style coins) were plated casts. They could be plated, or they could be casts. In any event, all such "wrong style" coins whether plated or cast should be treated with a great deal of suspicion. Except for the wrong-style good-silver struck imitations from the frontier regions, and the occasional plated copies of those coins, other wrong-style coins, cast or plated, are mostly bad.

Here are a couple of interesting plated coins, the first clearly a hybrid between Augustus and Mark Antony, Crawford 536, the second a hybrid between Augustus and a reverse that looks similar at first glance but isn't, more likely early empire (I can't ID the second reverse). The point is that a quick glance tells us that both were after-the-real-thing, plated coins that used real coins (more than one in some cases) to make die impressions. But there is no question about style or that they are ancient. No alarm bells are rung, nor for the earlier illustrated EID MAR slug. OP's coin in contrast rings alarm bells. I'm going with it being a 19th century cast (clarification edit after reading Barry's reply: not a cast of a coin, but an original artistic invention!)