Numism > Reading For the Advanced Ancient Coin Collector

Fake Hannibaliannus

(1/4) > >>

Potator II:
Hi all,

A few days ago, I posted in my gallery a pic of the Hannibaliannus that shows below (pic # 1)which I bought seven years ago from a reputable and reliable dealer in Paris :

AE 3 struck in Constantinople in 336 AD
FL ANNIBALLIANO REGI, Draped and cuirassed bust of Hannibalianus right
SE-CVRITAS PVBLICA, Euphrate lying left, leaning on a scepter. CONS at exergue
2.46 gr
Ref : RIC # 145 (R4), Cohen # 2, RC # 3935, LRBC # 1035, CGB monnaies IX # 652

Lars, with his eagle eye and elephant memory, recognized it as a possible die match to an other one in the fake reports gallery (pic # 2). The pic is not that good, but I must admit Lars arguments are convincing (Gasp and sigh !!!  >:( )

The question is : are we sure enough the coin in the fake report gallery is fake, that I could go to the dealer with enough evidence to ask for a refund (as the coin is unconditionally guaranteed). i wouldn't want the dealer to laugh at me just saying : "opinions from forum members are just what they are, and my coin is genuine, punct"

Thanks for any advice or published reference

Best regards
Potator

Pscipio:
In my opinion, these are modern engraved dies, and not taken from original coins. They look similar to the Magnentius, Vetranio, Flacilla, Eudoxia and Flavius Victor fakes showing up during the last two years, some even making it into well known auctions. I attached three die matching fakes of Flavius Victor looking quite similar to your Hannibalian.

Pscipio:
The third is from a reliable auction house, but was withdrawn prior to the auction. And No. 4., a similarly looking Aelia Flacilla from Forvm's fake reports.

Lars

Ilya Prokopov:
I have certain remarks about the style, inscriptions and portrait of this coin, but most of all I would like to point your attention to the following details:
- the coin core is old and original (authentic);
- the corrosion as well as traces from patina and mechanical accumulation outside the border dots strongly contrast with the "fresh" surface in the low relief inside the border dots;
- the high areas of the image and letters have traces of old corrosion;
- the cracks on the core are old and the striking was made after they have already existed;
- the control mark on the reverse comes from a sooner metal strain and besides the pellets circle was made by a machine;
- there is an old patina which is deformed and pressed to the image.

There are more strange things, but I think this is enough.
Personally for me this coin is not in order.

Potator II:
Currently on eBay.

Thanks roek for the info.

Here it is (I pasted the two pics)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page