More Alexander fakes + NGC Slabbed fake

[Din X]

Not really my first doubts very completely right.
They really made two reverse dies for this issue.


The flan shape of the first coin is not possible for this issue!
This automatically condemns the die matching ngc slabbed coin picture 2

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3992952-005/

And the die links see my second post should be more reason to condemn them.


 

[Din X]

Die links

Picture 2 - 4 have all the same reverse die

[Din X]

The other reverse die

[Din X]

The reason why I have modified this thread so often is this coin with a third reverse die of this emission.
Based on pictures it could be an obverse die match to the other fakes.
But I could not believe that the lazy forgers made 3 reverse dies of this issue.
For me it is not sure if this last coin is fake too or authentic and the forgers tried to imitated this dies.

[Din X]

There is already one example of this issue in fake reports but it is from a different artist.
The style especially the hair is different and on the reverse style of the letters for example the O.  

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-10648

[Joe Sermarini]

The different artist coin style is very obviously wrong and even if the other coins are fake, still unrelated.

The first coin is an overstrike on a hammered older coin (or a simulation of that). It does seem unlikely for this issue, but I have seen other examples of genuine coins unexpectedly overstruck on odd older flans. I can't say anything about this issue in particular, but it wasn't unusual for ancient mints in general to occasionally throw an odd flan into the mix. It is very suspicious but not 100% condemning.

The more die pairs, the less likely this is a work of modern forgery.

(Din X, I think you know all this. I am explaining to our less knowledgeable members.)

[Din X]

"The first coin is an overstrike on a hammered older coin (or a simulation of that). It does seem unlikely for this issue, but I have seen other examples of genuine coins unexpectedly overstruck on odd older flans. I can't say anything about this issue in particular, but it wasn't unusual for ancient mints in general to occasionally throw an odd flan into the mix. It is very suspicious but not 100% condemning."

I do not see traces from overstriking!
The problem is that hammered coins do not exist at this time, so they can not use hammerd coins as planchet for overstriking!!
They appeared much later and not for Alexander III coins for example on some IONIA issues which were minted muuuuuuch later!
There exist other Alexander fakes that are hammered too and which likely realted to this fake.

Picture 1, fake is die linked to the fakes in my second post (both obverse dies exist with same reverse die)

Picture 2 fake is published and related to the fakes in my second post, (both obverse dies exist with same reverse die)

Picture 3 die match to fake 2 Published in the IAPN BOC Vol 11, No. 1 in 1986 - example 1

"Belongs to an issue of Beirut forgeries. It imitates a tetradrachm struck at Byblos. The braod flan appears to have been hammered at the edges suggesting a much later date."

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-9937


Picture 4 the fake with same impossible flan shape this faln shap can and does not exist at this thime and for this mint!!!

The oberse die of this fakes seems to be pretty close to original, but the reverse die style is still not as good as the original and looks fake.
Style is very similar to the Alexander fakes and imho from same artist.
I think that the fakes from my frist and second post share the same obverse die.
The obverse die of the coins of my second post is published in IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 2 Fig 8

http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?mode=6Q/zOXMHeZ0=&id=XY4XQVRZnAI=


The coins from my second post are 100% fake, the same obverse die is used for 2 other mints + published in IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.1/2 1980 Page 2 Fig 8 .
The reverse die is  condemed by Reid Goldsborough (picture 5) as

"Lebanese School" forgery No. 4 of an Alexander-style Seleukos tetradrachm, weight unknown."

http://alexanderthegreatcoins.reidgold.com/modern_forgeries2.html
 
They are actually Bulgarian fakes.

The example from Reid is clearly pressed!

[Joe Sermarini]

Yes, it is too early for a hammered flan, but have seen many single exceptions to the rules. Even today, there are many examples of U.S. error coins struck on the wrong planchet. If I was not clear, I do think the coins are fake.

I am sure that at least someone reading this thread is now wondering, which coins above do I think are fake? It appears you have posted photos of at least three different completely unrelated fakes and suspected fakes in this thread. Please do not mix different completely unrelated fakes in the same thread just because they copy the same original type.  It make it much harder to discern the facts about the primary suspected fake that started the discussion.

[Din X]

I have bought an obverse die match, that has been condemned by IBSCC as fake and another die match to my fake has been withdrawn recently from auction after I have notified them about the problems of these coins and that my coin is for authentication at IBSCC.
I can only recommend IBSCC it costed 200 EURO but you get for your money imho by far the very VERY best expertise of the very best experts in the world.
(They are consulting if necessary very respected and from me admired experts like Sear)


I bought my coin because it was a die match to the specimen in Paris (I did not consider that museum collections can be polluted with fakes from donations and purchases, too).

Paris

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10317610w.r=Alexandre%20III%20le%20Grand?rk=10236102;0

Then I have looked more carefully at the coin and found the die links to the two specimens with hammered flan of which one has been condemed by IBSCC already as fake.
 
I was worried because the coin is die linked to examples with thin hammer planchets which seems to be impossible for this time (anachronism).
 
My fake is a revese die match to an IAPN published forgery (bulletin on counterfeits Vol 11 number 1 (1986), page 26., was condemned by David Sear

And that there are errors in regnal name delta instead of alpha.
And epsilon instead of xi.

I can not see any signs that my fake, the withdrawn fake or the hammered fakes are  transfer die fakes.
At least some of the Beirut fakes are made with hand cutted dies or heavily recutted transfer dies but some are of course transfer dies fakes but they do generally have problems which I can recognize.

I still do not like the Paris specimen and the NGC slabbed coin and will most likely never like or accept as genuine although I can not completely exclude the possibility that they are authentic .

Picture 1 Paris

Picture 2 merged my fake with die linked coins with hammered flan, red line mines same die

Picture 3 my fake

Picture 4 withdrawn at auction

Picture 5 obverse die match with hammered flan

[Din X]

Picture 1 here fake with hammered flan die match to IBSCC published fake picture 2

Picture 2 IAPN BOC Vol 11, No. 1 in 1986

Picture 3 same obverse die but recutted hair IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 5 No.12 1980 Page 2 Fig 8

Picture 4 shows what I meant with recutted hair, there are always 3 wisps on the recutted die but more than 3 wisps in the die uses to strike the Paris coin, my fake and the withdrawn fake .
That Beirut forgers are recutting dies is known in most cases to change symbols.


Picture 5 another Beirut Alexander forgery, which I bought from fake seller, sellers picutres are better than mine so I am using sellers pictures.
(Most likely from the same workshop so not completely off topic ^^)

[Joe Sermarini]

Fake coin reports as needed, please.