Fishy Thasos Silver

[cogito]

These are being sold by a certain Fleabay seller, who will remain nameless...

Does anyone else experience "alarm bells" when viewing these?  Particularly the drachm satyr/nymph, which is trying to approximate SNG Cop 1019 but the incuse reverse appears all wrong.  The weight is good, though (3.5 gm).

Next is what appears to be a rare Thasos diobol, only its about a 1/2 gm light and the amphora reverse doesn't match known dies.  I'm less sure about this one because of the rare nature of known, authenticated examples.  (1.07 gm).

Lastly, a running satyr trihemiobol (.75 gm)...which may or may not be problematic, but because of the other two I thought it might be insightful to see if we have a mix of authentic and non-authentic.

Jeff

(Moderator note: fake report filed this coin)

[cogito]

Diobol.

(Moderator note: fake report filed this coin)

[cogito]

Trihemiobol

(Moderator note: fake report filed this coin)

[cogito]

Well, I didn't receive a response in the Fakes section, so I thought I would post it here as well.  Is anyone else suspicious of this coin...particularly the incuse reverse?

Jeff

(Moderator note: fake report previously filed this coin)

[cogito]

Just in case people were lurking on this thread hoping that my suspicions were wrong and considered snatching up a "steal,"  please beware.

This was posted by another concerned individual elsewhere with evidence to back it up:


At 08:27 AM 10/25/05 -0000, a. wrote:
>The following coin's style looks dramatically off to me (sold by an
>often-defended dealer):
>
[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

>
>Yours,
>A.

These coins also bother me, but until now I just passed them by as
something I did not want to bid on and did take the time to look into it.
I have taken a few moments and can make the following observations :

While the style of the obverse bothers me a lot, it is what I see on the
reverse punch that bothers me more.  On this image, you will see the coin
being questioned in the upper left, with three others around it taken from
images of the same basic type of coin taken from coinarchieves (the one in
the lower right is just a more enlarged image, not of a larger denomination) :

http://www.calgarycoin.com/tempthasosrev.jpg

What I notice, is that on the three genuine examples the pebbling goes
right to the edge of the punch.  Inside some of the squares there is a
minor non-pebbled surface around the edge, but if you look closely it is
actually on a beveled side of sheared metal created as the punch was
impressed.

Now look at the coin that is being questioned, in the upper left corner. It
actually has a boarder of non-pebbled surface on the flat area of the coin,
and thus it has to have been a non-pebbed area on the die.  

I believe this is an example of a forger cutting into his die features that
were only created on genuine coins by the striking processes, and were not
on the original dies. Based on this, I believe the coin in question is most
likely a modern fake struck from  modern false dies.

Robert K.

[cogito]

Just in case people were lurking on this thread hoping that my suspicions were wrong and considered snatching up a "steal,"  please beware.

This was posted by another concerned individual elsewhere with evidence to back it up:

---------------------------------------

At 08:27 AM 10/25/05 -0000, a. wrote:
>The following coin's style looks dramatically off to me (sold by an
>often-defended dealer):
>
[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]
>
>Yours,
>A.

These coins also bother me, but until now I just passed them by as
something I did not want to bid on and did take the time to look into it.
I have taken a few moments and can make the following observations :

While the style of the obverse bothers me a lot, it is what I see on the
reverse punch that bothers me more.  On this image, you will see the coin
being questioned in the upper left, with three others around it taken from
images of the same basic type of coin taken from coinarchieves (the one in
the lower right is just a more enlarged image, not of a larger denomination) :

http://www.calgarycoin.com/tempthasosrev.jpg

What I notice, is that on the three genuine examples the pebbling goes
right to the edge of the punch.  Inside some of the squares there is a
minor non-pebbled surface around the edge, but if you look closely it is
actually on a beveled side of sheared metal created as the punch was
impressed.

Now look at the coin that is being questioned, in the upper left corner. It
actually has a boarder of non-pebbled surface on the flat area of the coin,
and thus it has to have been a non-pebbed area on the die.  

I believe this is an example of a forger cutting into his die features that
were only created on genuine coins by the striking processes, and were not
on the original dies. Based on this, I believe the coin in question is most
likely a modern fake struck from  modern false dies.

Robert K.

[cogito]

Myrmidon,

I don't think it would be prudent or fair to condemn all the seller's coins based upon the presence of one almost certain fake.  As I mentioned before, I have purchased a few bronze lots from him and there was no indication of "salting" with suspect items. 

In any event, I can tell you that I will be more discerning when considering any future purchases in light of this Thasos coin.  I would add that I have less firm suspicions on the other Thasos issues sold this week.

I wonder if the seller is even aware of the concern over this coin...not only here, but as discussed in other coin collector (listserve) venues??   I would hope that if he were, the coin would be voluntarily withdrawn or appropriately relisted.

Jeff

[slokind]

I have just sent (without naming anyone) this message to the seller you have all but named:

They have been complaining about a coin that you have for sale on eBay, of Thasos, with satyr and nymph, with a very untypical incuse pattern on the reverse.  I thought you should know.  They are insisting that it is a forgery, a modern forgery.

I sent it in my own name, out of my private e-mail.  Pat L.

[cogito]

Pat,

It's not so much that the incuse pattern on the back is "untypical," but that the incuse fields are wholly of a uniform depth, which is not characteristic of the graduated depth and wear patterns seen on authentic pieces.   Also, as mentioned by Robert K., the pebbling in the incuse sections does not completely fill the areas and suggests a modern die cutter's attempt at approximating the edge sheering seen on authentic pieces.  And, lastly...and more damning in my book...is the complete lack of another die exemplar in known and published collections.  The die exemplar's that are close in style do not show as crude features or stylistic changes as those seen on the obverse of the coin in question (e.g., satyr's hand almost to nymph's feet; nymph's head out of proportion with her body; hands of satyr cut not as if he were not holding onto the nymph...full fingers forward as opposed to curled; etc.).

Regards,
Jeff

[cogito]

BTW - what are the odds of two examples of this very rare Thasos hemidrachm coming onto the market by the same seller within one week??

I'm not claiming it is fake...just odd that such a rare item would become common all of the sudden.

(Moderator note: fake report filed this coin)

[cogito]

I, too, have bought relatively inexpensive Greek AE lots from this seller in the past.  I have nothing to suspect in those coins and actually some are quite nice.

However, this dealer's Greek silver single coin offerings have always made me a bit wary.  And, now with the listing of this Thasos coin, my wariness is doubled and I will probably never be a return customer again.

Pat L. emailed this dealer and informed him of the concerns voiced here and on other ancient coin listserves by multiple individuals.  What I find extremely troubling is the fact that the coin is still listed on Ebay as genuine.  This suggests that the dealer may be willing to sell highly suspect coins and refund the unsuspecting buyer ONLY if the winning buyer complains about the coin's authenticity.  This selling behavior smacks of "preying upon the novice or unaware," and is the sort of thing that ultimately turns off people to our hobby.  Honest dealers have a responsiblity to be the initial gatekeepers in keeping fakes off the market.  But, I guess to some all the responsibility rests with the buyer.

To me, real integrity is an internal force that guides behavior, not something borne of external contingencies (e.g., prospect of being caught doing something wrong). 

Disappointed, but not surprised...

Jeff

 

[cogito]

Three of these things are the same thing (i.e., authentic)...one these things is not the same (i.e., likely fake).  Can you spot the "one thing"? 

Nuff' said.

Jeff

(Moderator note: fake report filed this photo: style deviations gallery)