Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 01:13:09 pm
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: It is possible to spot two EXACT (same dies and planchet) coins from 5th cen.AD? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: It is possible to spot two EXACT (same dies and planchet) coins from 5th cen.AD?  (Read 1297 times)
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« on: May 03, 2012, 04:28:55 am »

Got a debased gold (reddish) starter from ancient India. To my surprise, I found exactly the same coin in terms of dies used, orientation and the cut of the planchet in Baldwin's auction - http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=408759

Can you recall a case like this in your experience?

Or maybe the bottom line here is - both are fakes? Interestingly that my coin (in picture below) weights about gram less that the coin from Baldwin's auction.

Best regards,

Renars
Logged
Zaph0dd
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135



« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2012, 07:02:09 am »

English Hammered coinage hoards has shown up many examples of duplicate dies and Blank cuttings, particularly Henry III - Edward Ist Pennies from the 12th-13th centuries.

it does happen.

Logged
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2012, 08:20:20 am »

I totally agree in the case of English hammered coinage - you definitely can find two coins strucked with same dies on cuttings made by same cutter, especially in a hoard of freshly minted ones. But is this also true in case of ancient coins - with almost 4 mm coin thickness and probably using technology less advanced?

Weight deviation really bothers me - here is an edge picture.
Logged
apgrassman
Praetorian
**
Online Online

Posts: 94


« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2012, 09:21:26 am »

Hi, I was lucky enough to buy several lots from a hoard found many many years ago, there was a good mix of gallic emperors, mixed with barbarous radiates, when i had finished sorting i noted that about 15 coins of the barbarous types were all from the same dies, obverse and reverse.  So yes it is possible, ok these are not official coins but who's bothered Grin

Regards

apgrassman
Logged
nemesis
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2012, 10:40:36 am »

I might not be an expert on Indian gold, but I do have some exerience of die matching.  What strikes me here is that not only do the dies match, but also the flan shape as well as the exact placing of the dies on the flan.  My opinion is that the pictures above are of the same coin that appeared in the Baldwin auction.  That coin was unsold in 2008, plenty of time for it to have been offered elsewhere and then ended up in monetanova's hands.  The only noticeable difference between the two coins is in the toning, and even that could have been altered between the Baldwin sale and the recent re-appearance.
There could be any number of reasons why the quoted weights differ, such as inaccurate scales or even typo errors in the original auction catalogue or the transcription to the acsearch entry.

nemesis

Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 9016



« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2012, 10:47:23 am »

Given the almost identical flan shape and type centering and the identical edge flaw at 11 o'cl. of the obv. = 1 o'cl. on the reverse, I would be very surprised if these weren't cast duplicates!

I think not the same coin, Nemesis. Note for example the different pits on the "windmill" on the obverse.
Logged

Curtis Clay
nemesis
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2012, 10:56:25 am »

Thanks Curtis.  I did eventually notice the extra pit on what I now know to be a windmill.  Also it took a while to realise that monetanova's coin is the lower one of the two illustrated above.  I can only say that I am glad my numismatic speciality (locally struck Maldivian coins) has yet to be blighted by forgeries.  Probably because nobody other than me and about three other collectors I know are interested in them.

nemesis
Logged
David M3
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 950

Retired collect as a hobby


« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2012, 12:28:14 pm »

I two say casted coins the coin flans are just to similar to be anything else. The only thing is are they time period casting or modern. It was not uncommon to cast coins during the period but I do not know if they are period or modern.
Logged

David V McCallum II
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 04:14:20 am »

Interestingly that similar die orientation axis that caught my attention before looks normal when researching this issue with other coins. Here is a good example - http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=19925
Logged
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 04:32:18 am »

Bingo! I've spotted a triplet coin - unfortunately source picture is so small with heavy shadow on edge area with most interest, but you can see all the same characteristics here.
Logged
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2012, 05:32:07 am »

The third coin has the same weight deviation (below 7 gms): http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=49868

Here is the clean and nice family photo of our triplets Roll Eyes
Logged
4to2CentBCphilia
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2012, 06:09:03 am »

Unfortunately, you are simply finding further proof that these are cast fakes...................unless these coins were traditionally cast 1500 years ago (which I do not know)................and you just happened to find 3 coins with identical flans and dies after a couple days of searching....................and you knew at least 2 were authentic.......and..................

You see, it's the flans that are the concern...............you can only get this from casting, and casting is how the vast amount of forgeries are created. If you are collecting a series that was traditionally cast, then you have a challenge in discerning authentic from fake................and then you have the mess you have here.

You will need to assume these are fake cast copies, unless you can prove otherwise. You know the cliche.............looks like a duck.........quacks like a duck.........................then it's probably not a unicorn.

BR

Mark








Logged
monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2012, 07:21:04 am »

Dear Mark, I haven't said that these are fakes (or forgeries) or authentic ones (or maybe imitation issues). That question is still open and I would be very grateful if there would be any proposals on how to get clear evidence and authenticate the coin I have.

Here are some more hi-res daytime, multi-angle pictures of a coin. Please, take a look and use also zoom function to see maximum details - https://picasaweb.google.com/108364739902262042190/KidaritesElectrumStater?authuser=0&feat=directlink
Logged
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3890



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2012, 07:43:46 am »

Dear Mark, I haven't said that these are fakes (or forgeries) or authentic ones (or maybe imitation issues). That question is still open and I would be very grateful if there would be any proposals on how to get clear evidence and authenticate the coin I have.

Here are some more hi-res daytime, multi-angle pictures of a coin. Please, take a look and use also zoom function to see maximum details - https://picasaweb.google.com/108364739902262042190/KidaritesElectrumStater?authuser=0&feat=directlink

I am with Mark. Certainly the top and bottom ones are cast fakes. One tell-tale sign is the crack in the major design element at 1 pm on reverse. This copy of a crack indicates that they were cast from a struck coin. Your high resolution pictures further confirm it - there's a moon-surface of casting defects, no sign of flow-lines, no sharpness etc.

There's a small possibility that the middle example (Baldwin's) might be the host as it looks more sharp in every respect (we can't see its surfaces due to the patina, but the patina may hide the same problems. But as the item we are debating is your example then I'm absolutely sure that's a cast fake.
Logged

monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 08:15:31 am »

Thank you, Andrew - I perfectly see your point.

How would you call these thin lines (visible on fields under 20x magnification)? And what they could possibly explain?
Logged
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3890



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 08:59:34 am »

Thank you, Andrew - I perfectly see your point.

How would you call these thin lines (visible on fields under 20x magnification)? And what they could possibly explain?

I'm afraid that I don't know what those lines mean. Perhaps some artifact of metal-mixing, perhaps a patina effect, perhaps they mirror a raised line on the original or an imperfection in the mould. I don't know. But the larger picture seems to confirm to me that there are at least 2 if not 3 fakes, and I doubt that a closer examination of the metal could disprove that.
Logged

monetanova
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2012, 09:35:10 am »

These lines are actually an interesting aspect. As you said before porosity (moon-surface fields) are a definite evidence of an cast fake.

Here I don't see a porous surface in that way. I see "holes", but no "hills" - which should also be as a byproduct of a cast fake.

When looking closer to untouched fields - I see these concentric, sometimes parallel very thin lines. I might be wrong, but I can't imagine a cast coin with such detailed texture on deeper surfaces of both fields.
Logged
4to2CentBCphilia
Guest
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2012, 09:42:47 am »

These lines are actually an interesting aspect. As you said before porosity (moon-surface fields) are a definite evidence of an cast fake.

Here I don't see a porous surface in that way. I see "holes", but no "hills" - which should also be as a byproduct of a cast fake.

When looking closer to untouched fields - I see these concentric, sometimes parallel very thin lines. I might be wrong, but I can't imagine a cast coin with such detailed texture on deeper surfaces of both fields.

You're grasping at straws. Sorry.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Resources  |  Authentication, Fakes and Frauds (Moderators: maridvnvm, Ilya Prokopov)  |  Topic: It is possible to spot two EXACT (same dies and planchet) coins from 5th cen.AD? « 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 1.228 seconds with 59 queries.