Fake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers => Topic started by: Heliodromus on April 06, 2004, 04:36:57 pmFake Coins and Notorious Fake Sellers => Topic started by: Heliodromus on April 06, 2004, 04:36:57 pmOK, here's what I think...
Other than that, I think these coins need their authenticity judged on a per coin basis, as some seem real, and others not.
Evan
many other examples which are ok for me (see for instance pict. of replies#8 & 9), with good hoard patinas
...I would not believe in the"salting" of fakes among a good hoard...
You may be right about the number of rarities in the hoard but ... we don't know how many coins this hoard was made of; hundreds? thousands? ??? It's then easy to find several interesting ex.
Would a forger really spend so much time producing so many different dies of the same type for coins of such low value?
When I open the link, it says that the seller has nothing for sale...
Evan
I am going to ask the gentleman I got mine from how he cleaned them. Hopefully he will reply.
I'm joining this discussion quite late I see. In fact I didn't notice this subject until I saw that there were 95 replies. I have read only a few of the replies, but I've looked at all the photos, so if I'm repeating a conclusiion that's already been reached I apologize in advance.
In my opinion all of the coins pictured in this discussion with that crappy, powdery looking green patina are fake.
First off the patinas. If we were looking at a single hoard, it would be possible for all the coins to have the same patina, but we are not looking at a hoard. The range of issues and denominations is too broad to represent a single hoard. You never find early Constantines in the same hoard as Magnentius'. The patina is modern in my opinion and chemically applied.
Second, the flans. Under the patina, all the flans are uniformly smooth with the same dark brown color. There is really no variation in any of the flans, from many mint and many different emperors. The flans in my opinion have been mass produced and are wrong for the time period. Most appear to rise slightly at the edge.
Third, the devices. All of the dies, from Constantine to Magnentius appear to have been cut by the same hand. There is a similarity in style that goes from one coin to the next. While there is some variation in the portraits, the underlying style appears the same on all the coins. I don't like the way the letters on all the coins appear in a perfect arc. There are no letters cut too high or too low. The Rome mint Constantine with the seated Roma, the mint mark has been butchered and is completely wrong.
In my opinion none are ancient, all are fake. Study them closely and I'd avoid this seller. You may see them show up with different patinas after whomever is making them realizes the patinas are recognizable.
Barry Murphy
A little poser.......Another Sarmatia.....is it real or is it fake??......Is it a monneron or is it from a completely different source??
But I guess we all still need to wait for an expert to decide the matter?
The coins do not come from a single hoard source, this is without doubt.
The coins come from an old friend who found them in France in a ground pot approximately 35 years ago. It certified that the patina was natural. There are many coins of Arles and Lyon. It is normal because these cities are in France.
It was stuck inside the ground pot. We preserved the ground incrustation to show the green patina lower part. This ground incrustation disappears easily with washing and brushing but the patina remains.
I also asked the seller about the authenticity of the coins and the possibility of a hoard, on 20-Jun; here is his answer (original msg, followed by the translation in English):
"je suis certain de l'authenticité des monnaies. Il s'agit d'une vieille et importante collection de monnaies de bronze de Constantin et sa famille dont certaines monnaies m'ont été confiées à la vente. Cette collection comprend de nombreuses monnaies d'Arles mais aussi de bien d'autres ateliers. Simplement j'ai mis en vente spécifiquement quelques monnaies d'Arles pour les amateurs de cet atelier recherché car français. J'ai déjà vendu et vendrai dans les semaines à venir d'autres ateliers. j'avais il y a quelques mois fait une vente spécifique atelier de Lyon."
that translates to:
"I am certain about the authenticity of the coins. They come from an old and important collection of bronze coins from Constantine and his family, some of which have been entrusted to me for sale. This collection features many coins of the Arles mint, but also many others. I specifically put in auction some coins from Arles for the [French, ndt] collectors of this mint, sought after because French. I already sold, and will sell in the next weeks other mints. I had already made some months ago a dedicated sale for the Lyon mint."
Which I suppose is the point. Different areas will always produce different patinations even on hoarded coins.
The obverse on the monneron does look odd though.
I don't see much wrong with those 3rd Century coins, though the scan's a bit small. If they are fakes, the guy's amazingly successful at imiating a range of styles. Personally I'd like to see someone of Curtis' standing having a look at one in the flesh.
I'm joining this discussion quite late I see. In fact I didn't notice this subject until I saw that there were 95 replies. I have read only a few of the replies, but I've looked at all the photos, so if I'm repeating a conclusiion that's already been reached I apologize in advance.
In my opinion all of the coins pictured in this discussion with that crappy, powdery looking green patina are fake.
1. The coins were (re)patinated (regretful but usual and sometimes inevitable practice).
This was done in a very awkward way inconsistent with high qualification of presumable forger.
2. People who have coins never not claimed that they are fakes. Contrarily, they
indicate that after, removing the ``greeny stuff", quite a normal authentic coin appears.
All expert opinions are based on images. Is it true or not?
3. Everybody agree that the presumable forger knows well Arles and Lugdunum mints.
If the coins are fakes, they are produced in France, the country where the labor is extremely
expensive (to be precise: the cost of the labor in France s 26 euros per hour). Nobody provided an explanation what can be a motivation of such a skillful to produce individually (and not as a mass production) forgery of the 3rd century copper. Apparently, it is economically unreasonable.
We should admit that the seller is not obliged to provide an information about
the provenance of his coin (everybody knows dealers which prefer not to reveal his sources).
I hope that a moderator of this section, whatever is his position, should intervene
and try to summarize the achievements existing point of view.
I think that I will me in the minority in thinking this however.
Third. The price of gold coins is dozens and even HUNDRED times higher than of these MISERABLE copper and, nevertheless, forgers reused their dies.
Ben, did you notice that arguing in your last post you proved that that such a scenario
is impossible. Economically, the same result (admitting the existence of the Engraver)
can be obtained by cutting a pair of dies for an aureus or a dozen
of dies with of Galba, Vitellius and even Tribute Penny which is always in demand.
And would you consider these to be obverse die matches with different reverses? The red background was submitted to this thread about a year ago by DIVVSAVGVSTVS and the other sits in my black cabinet.The obverses are quite similar, probably by the same hand, but not from the same die. Look at the end of the shorter tie which is near the C on the one and nearer to the O on the other coin, the quite different first letter S on the left, and the dot behind the head.
And out come the prospective fake creators! I know jb wouldnt, but I would say to tread very carefully in this area as to not encourage more fakes to be produced. I am sure many of us who have a flair for engineering could certainly come up with ways to fake coins to one degree or another, but I am of the opinion that we shouldnt really talk about it much lest the less scrupulous people get more information.
"Hyundai's logically can't exist, because it'd be illogical for the manufacturer to not be building Ferrari's! "
This is the point! It quite logical from the economical point of view: what production is more profitable.
I was one of the people who bought some coins from Monneron.
Following the discussion on this list, I took 12 coins (8 official, 4
imitative) to the British Museum to see what they had to say. The 8
coins (including Magnentius and Decentius) that are of official dies
were all judged to be genuine. About three of the four imitative
pieces the BM coin curator said that he would have to defer
judgement. There were no obvious signs to indicate a forgery, in fact
their fabrique looked absolutely genuine in the opion of the BM, but
the particular dies were unknown/unrecorded and one would need to
know more about the source. One coin of the imitative group was die-
linked with a piece illustrated in the literature and this coin must
be regarded as genuine.
I think the problem is that Monneron probably has mixed good coins with bad, and for us to simply categorize his sales as "Monneron coins" is simply going to confuse everyone and get us arguing with one another.
"However, die links will be a witness of a hoard finding."Only if the hoard is from the mint. In this "hoard" which covers a long time span, die links would be suspicious. That would mean the coins circulated and gathered again into a hoard. That is very unlikely. Especially for two barbarous counterfeits.
I remember, that several months ago Joe was extremely irritated by a discussion about the modernMy position is still the same. I have said nothing about CAD in this thread.
technology that allows to produce high quality fakes, e.g., using CAD. I must say that his arguments were
quite persuadive. Now he defends the opposite point of view. If a new collector will read this thread,
he may get that there are plenty of forgeries even at the low end.
Personally, I prefer to be on a former Joe's position, saying, NO.
In several posts senior members of the board presented their experience with not negligeable sample of Monneron's coins confirming the authenticity. This is bad: no consensus with an expert who confirmed his skill at the authenticity test.No, we will not do that. I will just point out that the two highest scoring dealers on the authenticity test have condemned these coins.
I would say that it would be better to remove the whole thread and start the discussion afresh with new evidences.
terrible cgb.fr? He regularly suggested interesting and very detailed catalogs of coins (higly overpriced, off limits, in fact) accompanied by scientific analysis of the coinage. I did not expect that this guy will be a reseller of ``monnerons" priced 10 times higher than in monneron's auctions on eBay!
I notice that this thread is no longer "sticky".
Remember the British Museum was said to have examined some monnerons and pronounced them genuine. Here is a monneron from the fake gallery which I have tried to "digitally remaster" to give it a sandy patina instead of the usual "jax". Doesn't look too fake to me.
To be more specific. A result of today. Crispus: the winning bid tacitus38(65) 36.25 EUR (this guy is an amateur) but the second bid was of gb29400(1629), a reputed numismatist!
I have continued work on the Constantius II, BEATA, I posted recently and there is silvering buried under some of the crud sitting on the coin. I have posted an image of the location of the underlying silvering and will attempt to get a reasonable image showing it. Why go to the effort of creating a fake with underlying silvering and then cover it up?
Martin
IMO all the campgates from Arles are fake, as are those miserable looking Fel Temps and the coins of Decentius. Anybody care to add?
My monneron is a campgate from Arles and it has undoubted traces of silvering visible on the reverse. Does that answer your question?
Alex.
Remember the British Museum was said to have examined some monnerons.I have questions about this. First "was said" - said by who. Who took them to the museum. And second, who did they talk to?
This is a post that was made to the CFDL back around the time this thread was getting going, so not discussing his recent offerings but the earlier ones which got this thread started.
Keith
Hello all,
I was one of the people who bought some coins from Monneron.
Following the discussion on this list, I took 12 coins (8 official, 4
imitative) to the British Museum to see what they had to say. The 8
coins (including Magnentius and Decentius) that are of official dies
were all judged to be genuine. About three of the four imitative
pieces the BM coin curator said that he would have to defer
judgement. There were no obvious signs to indicate a forgery, in fact
their fabrique looked absolutely genuine in the opion of the BM, but
the particular dies were unknown/unrecorded and one would need to
know more about the source. One coin of the imitative group was die-
linked with a piece illustrated in the literature and this coin must
be regarded as genuine.
If the group I bought from Monneron is representative of his
material, I think the claim made earlier on this list that all his
coins are fake must be rejected. It would seem that his official
coins are all or mostly authentic while some of the imitative pieces
remain questionable.
My monneron is a campgate from Arles and it has undoubted traces of silvering visible on the reverse. Does that answer your question?
Alex.
I saw the post. Keith quoted someone but did not include the name.
(I'd contacted him to alert him of an unrelated fraudulent eBay item he was bidding on)
From style, fabric, surfaces, deposits, and from comparison with the other pieces in your collection, I would not hesitate to declare your monneron piece "clearly authentic".I managed to win some auctions and have some coming to me soon. I am glad they are "clearly authentic." We don't need good fakes on the market. I look forward to putting mine under the scope. I do expect I will agree with Curtis. I don't think I have ever disagreed with him on anything. Yet, I will still be relieved when I see the monneron supply of this hoard dwindle. Even if I am looking at coins in hand that are clearly authentic, I’m not sure I will be able to dispel 100% of my lingering doubt.
An ill-informed auxilliary might be tempted to say to some ' I told you so' (a legionnary never would of course!).
Federico,
Sorry, I've been preoccupied with another of the Constantine clan. The original auction picture (unless I'm having another brain f*rt) is shown on reply #15 by Wolfgang on pg. 1 of this thread.
My first impression was that it might be a cast fake given some apparent softness of features, the surface texture (emphasized by traces of patina in the tiny surface defects), and the shallow relief of the devices. However [...]
Well I knew my opinion did not count, but David Sear also found no reason to suspect my campgate.
these coins shared identical dies (moulds?)Dies, in my hopinion, and not moulds: I'm almost sure these coins are not cast (different flans, credible micro flan fractures, etc.).
Don't forget the campgate animated fade example back a few pagesActually, the animation proved that the die match was not perfect, so there are no proofs at all about these two coins...
I think we are all coming to the conclusion now that monneron sells (or at least in June of last year sold) good and bad coins.I agree about this conclusion, even if I'm not yet sure that everyone does :)
Just to inform members that monneron has actually sold three examples of the Fel-Temp as shown here.
Fine, the Sarmatia Devictas are genuine, until proven otherwise. But what about the campgates?
OK, I'll concede the campgates are genuine.
Tacitus38 seems to be not a sucker and I wonder whyBecause maybe he doesn't speak English or is not keen on participating to a forum in English language? He probably even ignores the existence of this site.
he does not intervene in this discussion in person to persuade the commuinity that everything is OK.
But would somebody who can imitate coins of this era so perfectly really go ahead and attract everybody's suspicion by repatinating them in such a moronic way?
Rupert
4) Patina:
The "verdigris" and the crystals: crystals of "verdigris"adhere strongly to certain changes. This we appears extremely difficult to imitate!!!
Picture 7 : http://www.fredericweber.com/MONNERON/cristaux.jpg
Nice job, Frédéric, you should modify your translations by hand, as it seems you used an automatic translator, and the result is sometimes weird :o4) Patina:
The "verdigris" and the crystals: crystals of "verdigris"adhere strongly to certain changes. This we appears extremely difficult to imitate!!!
Picture 7 : http://www.fredericweber.com/MONNERON/cristaux.jpg
Now I've seen this close-up, it's more than obvious that even the patina is natural; I've encountered it more than once (and I've been seriously cleaning for quite a long time now). About the crystals, yes that's 100% natural.
Before judging a patina, keep in mind that France is not Bulgaria, from where comes all the famous "batches of uncleaned". (very) different soils, different corrosions, hence different patinas.
Jérôme 8)
Still, I wish I would hear a story that I can believe that includes why a fake patina was added.
Still, I wish I would hear a story that I can believe that includes why a fake patina was added.
Harsh chemical cleaning, followed by an attempt to improve the appearance for sale seems to be the obvious explanation.
This seems infinitely more plausible than a presumed forger with that degree of skill and resources not bothering to apply a professional quality fake patina.
Ben
BTW, if most people believe the coins are real, shouldn't this topic be moved to For sale board?
I MUST now accept that the coins are almost certainly genuine.Joe, at "great" flea market which holds once or twice per year I met a dealer from Troyes region with two trays of "monneron" coins.
This "hoard" was extremely unusual in its composition. My belief that the coins were fake was based on my opinion that such a hoard was impossible. I still wonder how such a diverse and unusual group of coins all found their way together with the same patina. The monneron coins included an extraordinary number of coins with slightly unusual, interesting and attractive variations. Many of the coins appear to be the work of the same engraver. The monneron coins included the only barbaric die match I have ever noticed (and from the same seller, with the same patina). I simply believed it impossible that all these coins and so few dull ordinary coins were from the same hoard. It seems it is possible. I wish I knew how.
Joe, at "great" flea market which holds once or twice per year I met a dealer from Troyes region with two trays of "monneron" coins. They are exactly oypes the kind you specify: common types but unusual variations. The dealer (watch and clock specialist) claimed that he have bought these coins from someone about ten years ago and is still slowly selling them. There were 2 (or 3), probably, related hoards found ath the region. It seems that it was a temple on an important crossroad and the coins came from this temple. Imagine a person from this temple responsible for collecting/keeping donations of pilgrims or voyagers consisting of millions small pieces? Collecting is a very old hobby... He could select rare and beautiful specimens and keep them in the treasury while the "dull ordinary coins" gone first.
The most recent Celator has an article, which I have only skimmed thus far, which discusses test results that strongly indicate the monneron coins are genuine. Each coin tested was struck with a different alloy and each coin tested was struck with an alloy particularly appropriate for the type. It is unlikely that a forger would know the appropriate alloy for each type. It is very unlikely that a forger would go that far to make fake Roman bronze.
I doubt a person who did not have RIC and who did not look at the coins from our modern collector's perspective would see these variations as rare, unusual, or even attractive.
In short, they argue, the matter is more complicated than melting down a bunch of old coins. You'd have to make several batches (at least 17!) and match their alloy proportions to existing authentic alloy proportions, all the while assuming that some clever metallurgist in the future would perform energy dispersive X-ray flourescence spectrometry to try to catch you.I had in mind exactly this specifying " melt down Arles coins ". Melting old silver was a century old practice but to melt down small bronzes of a specific mint and
Rhetor
I think that the apparent nature of the hoard - a temple collection - does tend to explain the mix of coins.
I think that the apparent nature of the hoard - a temple collection - does tend to explain the mix of coins.
No it does not. But I will not repeat myself.
But you've yet to state specifically what rarities you're talking about that seem overrepresented in this collection (vs what a random sampling from that mint from that time period might suggest), nor yet stated what portion of the hoard you've seen in any form and what relationship you're assuming that bears to the whole...
Stating that the collection contains large number of rarities, whether flysepeck or not, means nothing unless you've established some reasonable baseline norm that you're comparing it against. A reasonable baseline norm for a hoard from a known region and time period certainly isn't normal occurence rate among all LRB!
Ben
The question is, What constitutes proof?
Chuck, don't keep your opinions to yourself. That is what makes a forum a forum.
Pat, you are an agnostic! To be honest, I am surprised, because the idea, as I understand it, contradicts the
fundamentals of the modern science. There is a challenge, a scientifical one, to prove or disprove some hypothesis. The researches
meet the challenge. They planned an experiment using sophisticated technology and made efforts to improve the reliability of the input data.
The results are definite and the conclusion follows.
Finally, the patina. The dealer believes that the coins are in their jus. Could someone explain this sort of patina as NATURALLY
developed? Say, by assuming that coins were hoarded in some organic stuff (fat, wax) which could produced such an effect.
Or it was developed during last decades when they were exposed to the air?
Jerome, both your points are weak.
Scientists, usually, do not believe at wonders. I do not believe in this "the most amazing men" who violates economical laws,
makes a huge amount of small coins in a consistent style with a number of mints (the first time in a history of numismatics),
and even circumvent the most sophisticated tests.
We believe that the hoards are very unusual in composition. Is it really the case? Not sure. This opinion probably based on ratings which reflect the statistics of available coins in major museums where coins of Arles mint are underrepresented. Could someone clarify this?
Could we accept a possibility that the treasurer had some competence in coinage and knew the meaning of symbols (say, former coin engraver or mint official). For him P, S, T etc. would be not just letters but his fellows... With such a background, being a collector, he could accumulate quite a specific stock. This is less fantastic than a forger theory...
As for the collector theory, I agree that it is far fetched; however, I can not agree with the reasoning. Given that we have many more modern coin collector than ancients ones now(and they do collect mint marks, etc), it is reasonable to think that the ancient coin collectors would also find marks on the coins interesting; and may more would collect contempary coins rather than exotic ones.
On the Monneron coin, the wreath looks like a salted nut roll! The underlying structure is a solid wreath with dots placed on top of it. And many of the dots are completely round. It could happen I suppose, but I have never seen it on coins of this era.
The authors had the right idea, but their sample sizes are just too small for any meaningful application of their results. The technology they used is quite accurate in assessing the composition of irradiated materials, but the statistical comparisons of the resulting data is where things fall apart.
There is an economic reason to make poor fakes. From one "cheap" die these guys do hundreds copies in an hour.
The coins we are discussing here are basically from different and "expensive" dies made by a highly qualified
engraver.
"There are lies...damn lies...and statistics." - Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Theodora from the Troyes dealer (6 EUR).
The authors did not statistically test the proportions (ratio) of their sample with the proportions of the standard hoard. However, similarities in proportionality do not get to the heart of the matter - fake or real. You could have a sample of fakes and real coins with the same proportion of types, etc.
Science can not (and shouldn't) be just waved away because the results are counter with one's belief system. Science (of which statistics is a standard tool) seeks to establish and describe an objective reality - in this case, whether it is statistically probable that the coins in question are not authentic. Experience and "eyeballing," while more often are correct, are prone to subjective interpretation and unaccountable error.
If the question then becomes "do the distributions of compositions of alloys of these coins, within various groupings, correspond well to the similar distributions of known good material", then it seems there may be insufficient data and/or analysis to answer this question.
The first year after the hat coin appeared, there were 13 similar "mistakes". This is pretty much the second year and I have only seen 6 or 7 more. LOL, is that statistically significant? I won't even go there!...I personally have over 200 of these VLPP issues from Siscia and have seen thousands more.
Peter, it is not a reasonable hypothesis.
The ancient forgers had financial interest in their hard work.
We would have many coins from the same dies...
Bonsoir,
If you read well the comments following the description of this coin,it is said :
" prendra le numéro 197e dans le supplément III du Bastien "(I d'ont translate ).....
and so on for the otthers.
Claude-
Stat" Monnerons'coins" volvitur orbis
Of course, someone may have doubts about the reliability of the alloy study, but all results confirms the hypothesis of authenticity.
May it happen that donators preferred to give to the temple coins of local mints, unusual or suspicious?