Resources > Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers

Constans Fel Temp galley Rome

<< < (2/3) > >>

Thanks, Curtis. I hadn't noticed the tail/fingers, but I agree they could be fingers - if this were a fake then for such a carefully studied copy it'd be odd for the engraver just to wing it with a long-tailed phoenix (unless, as you say, that's a known variety anyway, in which case it means nothing).

I'll try contacting Warren E. and see if he might like to comment on the side by side comparison. Unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, I think this should perhaps be removed from the fakes gallery.

Incidently, here's my coin that has a similar looking edge fault (as well as some signs of gilding), which was described when I bought it as having been from jewelery mounting, and to me looks similar to the fault in the first coin. I've also just noticed that the description of this coin on WildWinds (where it was apparently submitted by a previous owner who paid twice what I did!)  has been changed to describe it as unlisted... is that true?!

Ben, I'll be looking for your response from Warren. I think based on the comments in this thread there is enough doubt to remove the coin from the database.

Joe Sermarini:
I am aware of some of the details which Warren believes prove the coin fake.  There are details on these coins which don't match any published examples I have seen.  The Phoenix's tail on the first is one.  The rudders don't match the normal shape.  I have never seen (or at least noticed) shoulderflaps like these, but if Curtis says they are OK, I believe.  The reverses of these two coins are apparently by the same hand.  It may be they are genuine and this particular celator just had his own way.  I am interested in Warren's reaction to the new specimen.  They are pretty and if fake the best fake Constantine era bronze I have seen.  

Warren was kind enough to reply, but indicated his reply as private, although I don't think he'll mind me saying that he does believe the CNG coin to be genuine, and also that unfortunately there's a dearth of published examples of good quality Rome specimens to compare against... His concerns are based on multiple details that individually might not cause concern, but occuring together do so. That said, I believe there's sufficient doubt over the coin, as well as sufficient lack of comparison specimens to establish a norm, that we should perhaps give it the benefit of the doubt and remove it from the fakes gallery... IMO we should err on the side of the caution rather than condemning without fairly concrete proof.

Does anyone have a Rome example they could post? Unfortunately my only example is from Trier, with the emperor holding a victory not a phoenix. If we trawled all the available resources, I wonder what we could come up with between us.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version