Resources > Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers

Anastasius Solidus

(1/1)

maridvnvm:
For sale by the same seller as the various fake denarii id this Solidus. This is not my area of expertise at all and am posting it here for those better qualified than I to make a comment based on style etc.

Regards,
Martin

maridvnvm:
I have posted this coin here since it is for sale from a seller who has around 20 Fakes of medium to high-value coins for sale. I don't know enough about this coin to be able to say either way and have posted it here to solicit comments. I have NOT added this coin to the fake boards yet and will not until the coin is condemned for good reason by those with more knowledge of this type of coinage than myself. I do not want to condemn the coin purely by association with the other coinage as I think that is insufficient justification. The other coins can be condemned due to reasons of matching other known fakes, bad style etc.
Regards,
Martin

Hydatius:
There's nothing wrong with COMOB (Comitatus Obryziacum), since the ligatured mint mark in the left field shows that the mint is Rome (if it had been minted in Constantinople the mintmark would be CONOB).  A similar specimen from two recent auctions (same coin) can be found at

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=59058&AucID=62&Lot=633

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=75254&AucID=80&Lot=1668

This will help you to judge your example.  Note also the prices being asked for this coin.  Personally, to me the style and fabric suggest strongly that this is a fake, though there can be a great variation in style and consistency at Western mints at this time.  I would saty away from it just to be on the safe side.

maridvnvm:
This is the sort of discussion I wanted on this coin. I believe it is fake for two reasons. Reason one is simply by association with the plethora of potentially high-value fakes coming from a single seller, where this is the ONLY coin that has caused any debate, but his alone is not sufficient to condemn the coin. If I had seen the coin in isolation and not associated with the other coins it would not have atrracted my attentions at all. The second reason is that the reverse styling seems a bit off to my eyes, but as has been said this could be down to the great variation in style from this region at this time. I WILL add this coin but only as a SUSPECTED FAKE rather than a wholly condemned example, simply to have it there if another such example turns up, then we have something to compare it with. The listing will contain as many of the comments from this thread that can be sensibly used to help in the explanation of why it is only suspected rather than declared outright.
I wouldn't touch any of the coins for sale by this individual.
Regards,
Martin

Hydatius:
COMOB was the original designation that started under Gratian.  It was used for the comitatensian mint.  When that mint settled down in Rome and other Western mints were opened, other mint marks were added in the field: RM for Rome, MD for Milan, RV for Ravenna, and AR for Arles.  In the east they changed the mark itself to indicate the mint: CONOB for CONstantinople and THESOB for THESalonica.

As for fabric I mean the appearance of the coin itself apart from the actual legends or devices.  Late Roman solidi, both Eastern and Western, have a specific "look" to the surface, the edges, the shape, the thickness, and the "flatness" for want of a better word.  Is is mostly a product of what the coin is made of and how it was struck.  Like style, it's not a thing that can be readily explained without having lots of samples of real solidi in hand and a few samples of fakes.  There's nothing to substitute for long exerience (and even I still have doubts every now and then about some of my coins).  The trouble is that there is so much variation in fifth century coins as a whole and the quality is often so bad that it's really hard to tell.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version