Extremely dangerous altered Caracalla aureus currently for sale

[Din X]

Identical individual characteristics like same flan shape and same edge crack, but the scratches from the host coin have been removed in the casting mould.
Edit, I forgot to add that both have two identical scratches, that the scratch above Caracallas eye on obverse is well visible on the host coin and still but hardly visible on the cast fake.
The next scratch on the reverse left to the top of the sceptre is visbile good on the host and still but not as good visible on the cast fake.

[okidoki]

Well done

[Molinari]

Are you sure it isn't the same coin, and that someone "repaired" it?

[Vitellius]

Hi Din,

why dou you think is a cast forgery ?  They are absolutely identic, apart from several scratches on obverse and reverse ....

I think they are the same coin, the second repaired, simply removing all the scratches it had before.

It's a work that can be do easily by skilful restorers...

In this case the restorer hasn't restored a curl behind the ear/laurel wreath, probably because is very difficult to do if it hasn't preserved enough metal there on the coin .


Enrico  

[Din X]

Are you sure it isn't the same coin, and that someone "repaired" it?

The red copper encrustrations are different and on different positions.
That would mean that they first cleaned the coin and repaired it and after that they added new copper encrustrations to it.
Sound odd. Why adding new copper encrustrations?
And some of the sctatches are really massive and some areas are really flatted. (Dotted border on obverse and Securitas on reverse)
To give flatted areas height/relief  good details again is really difficult and I am not sure if it is actually possible to do that this good with repairing.
To repair this scratches in a casting mould is really easy but to do this on a coin is much more difficult.

[Vitellius]

The curl behind the ear/laurel wreath was not repaired... in a casting mould is really easy to do but not in a repair work, principally because it is a hit and not a scratch...

New red encrustrations/colours ( and earth) were added to mask traces of the previous work... ( as in field down V of SECVRITATI )

And yes... it is actually possible to do that this good with repairing... and better !

It is not actually possible to do a cast that replicate exactly a coin in his minimal details, as in this case..

Enrico  

[Din X]

"The curl behind the ear/laurel wreath was not repaired... in a casting mould is really easy to do but not in a repair work, principally because it is a hit and not a scratch..."

To reshape the foot of Securitas is muuuuuuuuuuuch more difficult than repairing a hit.
New material can be added which is often done to close a hole on holed gold coins, so to close a hit is easy and not really a problem.

Made a merged picture on top authentic coin from same dies, in the middle cast or reapired coin, and below host or unreapired coin.


"And yes... it is actually possible to do that this good with repairing... and better !"


Proove?

I have seen many tooled gold coins but the quality of reapir was always much worse!

Talk is cheap!


If you talk the talk you've got to walk the walk !!!

[Molinari]

I think the bottom of the gown is the dead giveaway- I hadn't noticed that before.

[Joe Sermarini]

...It is not actually possible to do a cast that replicate exactly a coin in his minimal details, as in this case..

Enrico  

Unfortunately, it is possible to replicate even minimal details, certainly to the level we can see in the photos. The only thing I have not seen replicated well is the rough irregular interior of a deep crack. Usually, you can find some casting bubbles and pearls but in the best cast fakes only under a microscope.

I have also seen some amazing "repairs."

I don't know, but I have to lean toward a cast fake, in part because I know the expertise of DIN X.

With one coin in hand, it would likely be much easier to determine than with the photos. With two coins in hand, the answer would be extremely easy.

[Vitellius]

Well, Daniel, may be my poor english is not enough to explain, but I will try...  

When you have scratches or tangential hits that leave the metal on site, simply you can put back again the metal, particularly if it is gold, due to the extreme malleability of this metal.

When the hit is ortogonal or so is not easy to put back the metal on his original site, because it is "down" especially in thick place of the coin and in places difficult to work... in this case you may be forced to add metal, with greater an worst problems to hide the repair...

In both case you must enmask the repairs by "repatinate" the coin. In case of gold tipically a red colour is added to mask shiny points and surfaces, now not so perfect or smooth.

In your last pics of the first coin you can easily note that gold metal ( your red Arrow) still is on site, in the pics of the second gold is put back... and the green arrow indicate a cut, but the metal is still there... ( please don't remove pics from your previous posts or I will not able to answer you correctly    )

In the first pic I put you can note that the field was restored, down the V of SECVRITATI, and now is covered with earth, because fields are usually more difficult to enmask only by red color when repaired, so it was added earth that is more opaque. Also trace of scratch not  repaired on dots above R.

In the second pic you can see the curl not repaired (with ortogonal hit, less or more) and wreath smoothed to repair it.

Unfortunately the pics of the second coin are in low definition, otherwise would be easier to demonstrate all

Obviously the final coin in hand would be realtively easy to detect reapairs, having the previous pic...

About the possibily of a good repair of scartches and hit I can assure you that it is quite easy to do if you know how and having good manuality, there are several people in Europe who can do this work even if only 3/4 can do it wonderfully...

Enrico  

P.S. If you need an evidence the only thing you can do that can convince yourself is to go to the auction house with a microscope and see the second coin... I think now you will see the repairs...

...and talking about evidence I have no evidence that there is a cast fake that could reply this kind of details with this perfection, and you?

[curtislclay]

What weights are given for the two coins?

[Vitellius]

What weights are given for the two coins?

Hi Curtis,
practically the same weight :

Gr 7.37 for the first and 7.36 the second...  

The second coin is on auction ten months later the first

Enrico

[Molinari]

So how do we explain the bottom of the gown/drapery?  Did the repair artist remove that feature?

[Vitellius]

Hi Molinari,

 I am not sure what you are indicating, but if you intend the bottom line that was squeezed by a hit ( for original status compare with the third coins in Din last post) I think it was put back to form again the line, even if not identical. May be that a little part was also cut away and not entirely put back...

I think the weight is a an heavy evidence that the coins are only one...

Enrico

[Molinari]

Ok, I understand now.   

[Din X]

"Gr 7.37 for the first and 7.36 the second..."


The problem is that the volume, size and weight shrinkage of gold when cooling down is pretty low, silver and bronze have a much higher shrinkage.
If both aution houses would have weight them correct, which is not sure than it would mean that it can not be cast.
The weight and size shrinkage of gold even with lost wax+pressure would be higher than 0.01 g
I have seen very high weight differences for the same coin if offered and sold by different auction houses, which is the reason why I do not rely much on the given weight anymore.


As Joe metioned above without having it in hand and under magnification it is not possibly to tell for sure.
I do not like the coin, that is why I checked it, I had a bad feeling when I saw it because it subconsciously reminded me on either cast fakes or altered gold coins can not tell for sure.

I can not proove that it is cast without having it in hand so I choose unmentioned alteration/tooling/repair which is obvious and no one will deny.

I have changed topic and substituted "altered or".


"I have no evidence that there is a cast fake that could reply this kind of details with this perfection, and you?"

I have seen  lost wax+pressure cast fakes which were close to undetectable in picture, have to admit that the pictures weren´t the best.
With really really high resolution and high quality pictures it is possible to say cast or not, but pictures here are not that good.

I hope that the "unreapired"/host will appear in the marked, then it would mean cast. (=2 coins exist)
If there will be no "unreapired"/host anymore it means that the coin is authentic but heavily altered.

Edit, it actually is only altered and not cast.

[Vitellius]

Daniel, anyway your work against fakes is very interesting and well done ! 

 And for sure also in this case you have got a right feeling about something wrong with this coin, because it is at least altered/repaired...

It would be interesting to see the coin in hand, now is in London... maybe a friend of mine can tell me something about it.

I have some  things to add to your tread about Pinarius Scarpus denarius, but it is a bit complicate so I need time, but I think they would be interesting to know more about the world of forgers and forgery...

Best regards, 

Enrico