UNUSUAL / UNKNOWN COIN --- COMMENTS / VIEWS WELCOME

[Lech Stępniewski]

maybe his supplier, or less likely his customer

Just a young man with big ego. Look at his "scientific papers" on academia.edu which are made using Wikipedia and copy/paste method (at least the paper about Galerius). He probably bought all these "interesting coins" and was so proud... I see no reason for supplier to point attention of numismatic community to his new products.

[Joe Sermarini]

It would not be the first time a fake seller has created a "paper" to legitimize his coins. I don't have a link to an example, but I recall seeing one before. He could show them to customers before the sale to help make the sale or to prevent returns from customers that want to return a coin because someone told them the coin is fake.

[SC]

Whether misguided newbie, troll, or agent provocateur his post does raise the challenge of proving the negative.  Though there is an incredible amount of experience here on forum some people, especially at first, are wary of simply being told it is a fake.  When you look at it in light of the morons who are harassing Joe you can see the situation in reverse - their claims forum stuff is fake.

I see it even more often in the area of antiquities.

The short answer that can often be given is where is the proof - where is the true scholarship identifying this thing.  It should not exist in the case of fantasy items. 

That is why these bogus academic works are so dangerous.

Shawn

[drifter182]

So can anyone publish their work on academia.edu, regardless of their credentials (or lack of them)? I may have to start thinking twice when reading papers on there.

[Jay GT4]

So can anyone publish their work on academia.edu, regardless of their credentials (or lack of them)? I may have to start thinking twice when reading papers on there.

BINGO! That's the danger.  

I was going to comment on his "papers" but didn't think it was appropriate but it seems everyone is thinking the same thing.  He says he's a member of the ANA, so who knows this guy?

[Hydatius]

"Comments/Views welcome' he says. Obviously not. I suspect he was looking for a negative reaction, but I can't figure out why.

As for Academia.edu, yes, anyone can upload a paper there, but serious researchers upload the PDFs supplied by their publishers or taken from JSTOR and similar sites. Here's mine so you can compare simply the look of the articles and you'll easily spot the differences:

https://uottawa.academia.edu/RWBurgess

So you can't accept as scholarly just any old thing you download from academia.edu any more than you can buy just any old coin from eBay.

Richard

[mihali84]

"Comments/Views welcome' he says. Obviously not. I suspect he was looking for a negative reaction, but I can't figure out why.

Given the amount of times he mentions "the distorted scientific investigation and scientific process demonstrated to be exercised", i think this entire ordeal was a misguided attempt at reducing the boards credibility.  All apparently in an effort to show others, angry customers or possibly his colleagues (if he has any), that though this board has deemed his coins to be fakes, we can't be trusted. 

What an exercise in futility that was. 

[Bill W4]

Well said, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true.

[*Alex]

Fake coin report please (it was not been done yet, when I looked just now).

It's been done now. 

Alex

[Joe Sermarini]

Thanks.

[Enodia]

34 posts to confirm what we knew after the first 3 or 4.    

this hobby is becoming less fun by the day, unless bickering is considered fun.
*sigh*

[Nebukadnezar]

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.
The break in the wing is the same.
Is the Goldberg example really authentic, it looks fake as well.

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1495930

with best regards,
Daniel

[Lech Stępniewski]

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.

That's impossible. The upper right part of the reverse of the Goldberg coin is out of flan.

[mihali84]

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.
The break in the wing is the same.
Is the Goldberg example really authentic, it looks fake as well.

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1495930

with best regards,
Daniel

They are in fact an exact obv/rev die match, as well as having very similar flan shape/appearance.  Given this information i think the Goldberg coins authenticity should be questioned.  The obverse does have a very soft look to it, which could be attributed to a worn die. 

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.

That's impossible. The upper right part of the reverse of the Goldberg coin is out of flan.

So the Goldberg coin would then be cast from the known fake, or they were both created using the same modern dies. 

[Nebukadnezar]

I merged the known coins together for comparison.

1.  fake          https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pos=1
2.  fake          https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?album=search&cat=0&pos=2
3. fake            http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1495930
4. authentic    http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1581258
5. dunno         http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=493694
                       http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=433861

6. dunno       https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=96571


With best regards,
Daniel

[Joe Sermarini]

I believe 4, 5, and 6 are genuine.

[ecoli]

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.
The break in the wing is the same.
Is the Goldberg example really authentic, it looks fake as well.

http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1495930

with best regards,
Daniel

They are in fact an exact obv/rev die match, as well as having very similar flan shape/appearance.  Given this information i think the Goldberg coins authenticity should be questioned.  The obverse does have a very soft look to it, which could be attributed to a worn die. 

The reverse seems to be a cast made from the Goldberg coin.

That's impossible. The upper right part of the reverse of the Goldberg coin is out of flan.

So the Goldberg coin would then be cast from the known fake, or they were both created using the same modern dies. 

Since both coins have details that are off the flan in the other, it seems they are both made from the same dies.  I don't see signs of casting though.

[Nebukadnezar]

Sry, missed a coin.

7. fake     http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=307590

Merged them better with text.

With best regards,
Daniel

[Joe Sermarini]

Please remember that the only sellers we name here are those on the Notorious Fake Sellers List. 

[Meepzorp]

So can anyone publish their work on academia.edu, regardless of their credentials (or lack of them)? I may have to start thinking twice when reading papers on there.

BINGO! That's the danger.  

I was going to comment on his "papers" but didn't think it was appropriate but it seems everyone is thinking the same thing.  He says he's a member of the ANA, so who knows this guy?

Hi Jay,

Maybe we all can use his "papers" as toilet paper. I think that is what you were implying.

Seriously, people do this all the time. It is usually done for financial or political reasons ("fake science", denying scientific facts, etc.).

If he really is an ANA member, this is a serious violation of their guidelines for proper conduct. He can be seriously reprimanded for this type of behavior, especially if he knowingly and deliberately is trying to defraud people.

Meepzorp

[Meepzorp]

34 posts to confirm what we knew after the first 3 or 4.    

this hobby is becoming less fun by the day, unless bickering is considered fun.
*sigh*

Hi Enodia,

Who is bickering? No one is bickering. The only person doing the bickering is the person who originally started this thread. All of the members of this forum seem to be in agreement.

Sometimes it is necessary to expose these types of people. Transparency, scientific examination,  and peer review are good for the hobby.

Meepzorp

[Andrew McCabe]

Who is bickering? No one is bickering. The only person doing the bickering is the person who originally started this thread. All of the members of this forum seem to be in agreement.

 

I agree. There seems to be a uniform consensus about these fakes. Even the original poster actually knows that they are fake, but is pointlessly trying to argue many experienced members out of an evident and well argued condemnation of these fakes. Not much chance of that.