Trajan DACIA

[rinhen]

I recently bought a Trajan silver with Dacia on  rev. However, it seems to me a copy. What do you guys think about this? Thanks.

[Diederik]

Why do you think it is modern? Not just for some irregularities at the rim - a smooth rim would make me suspicious.

Frans

[rinhen]

Hi Fran's, thanks for your reply. The edeg is one reasons, the most worrying is I find a coin seems a same type as this online.  Please see the pictures.

Yunheng

[Diederik]

I will tell you why I am suspicious of the first coin:
The fact that the coin's surface is rough, should be a result of oxydisation or, in rare cases, rusty dies, The wear on the coin is not equally distributed, sharpness of detail is lacking everywhere.
Second, and much more difficult to notice is the style and execution of the coin: Trjan 's nose is not good - there are no examples with a sharp pointed nose like that. The eyebrow is totally different from what you might expect to see on Trajan's  coins. Some letters look too modern to me. When I see so many things that strike me, I grow very suspicious of a coin. Forging is done by meticulously copying an original (casting) or by making new dies. For the last, you need expert skills as you want the new coin to LOOK like an original. When you are not an expert engraver, you might want to make the new coin to look like it has been in circulation for a long time and is partly worn.
Other members might want to add something to these thoughts, but I am very much in doubt.


Frans

[brassnautilus]

May I ask which letter(s) looked modern Frans?
Other than unusual wear on the P and T (rev.) I actually got the impression that the craftier (of the first coin) was trying to copy the letters on second coin precisely?

Also, as you had pointed out the nose had a sharp tip, but isn't it kinda the same on the second coin? Given, the eyebrows weren't as disturbing as on the first.
 

[Paddy]

Is the intial suspicion that coin 1 is a copy of coin 2? We can rule that out right away for pretty apparent reasons. Furthermore, coin 1 certainly appears to be struck; in these pictures there is not a hint of it being cast.

[mihali84]

The two coins are obv/rev die matches.  The first one posted appears to have slightly less die wear than the second, which can be seen around the legend especially on the obverse.  The first coin cannot be a copy made from the second coin due to the fact that the first has some details that have worn away on the second.  I do have the same suspicions as Frans, where the nose looks odd, and what seems like some uneven wear patterns. 

Did you purchase the coin from a well known trusted dealer?  You don't have to name names but it would help to know where you purchased the coin to help determine wether or not its a fake.   I feel like i have seem some very similar looking ones being offered by some notorious fake sellers on eBay. 

[Joe Sermarini]

Did you purchase the coin from a well known trusted dealer?  You don't have to name names...

Not only does he not have to name names - he can't.  It is not allowed unless they are already on the NFSL.  

[Diederik]

I have been pondering about the style of the letters; difficult, but perhaps the best way to approach is to look at the letter 'T' of TRAIANVS. In the first coin both bars are of equal width, which is very difficult to accomplish as the dies were cut with rotating wheels. The T on the second coin in the attached picture, shows what I expect to see: some broadening at the ends. If the die cutter intentionally cut very fine letters, why is the total sum of the text so messy? and especially the reverse die is a cock-up. Also the 'P's are made as we nowadays do, while on ancient coins we see the loop very often attached lower on the vertical bar, just like the 'R's.
Dealers' reputations don't mean everything and are no waterproof guarantee that not occasionally a forgery slips through. Just today, while looking up a Byzantine coin I had my suspicions about, I found an exact parallel in weight and irregular die size at a very reputable French seller.....

Experience is everything, a trustworthy dealer who will give you guarantee is very important when you lack experience and/or feeling.

Frans

[Paddy]

I must have misunderstood the definition of "die matches". Aren't the details on the coins supposed to be almost identical? There are several differences.

[Joe Sermarini]

These are not die matches.

[Paddy]

Right. Then I haven't misunderstood it (hopefully).

[Carausius]

I must have misunderstood the definition of "die matches". Aren't the details on the coins supposed to be almost identical? There are several differences.

The details in the devices and lettering should be identical for a die match, except in cases where the dies were re-cut after use.

[Paddy]

If the dies are re-cut, would it not be the same as a different die altogether?

[curtislclay]

Carausius means partially recut, for example a monogram or date changed, but the rest of the die remaining the same, proving the identity to the same die before the alteration.

[brassnautilus]

(the die that produced) the first coin looked like a meticulous yet imprecise imitation of (the die that produced) the second coin.

[mihali84]

The first two coins posted by rinhen are indeed die matches.  I am not sure if those are the two referred to as not being die matches but i just wanted to clear that up. 

[brassnautilus]

The first one posted appears to have slightly less die wear than the second, which can be seen around the legend especially on the obverse.

With respect to your opinion Mihali84, there also seemed to be some details from the second coin that were missing on the first.
Was it possible that the die was retooled at a point?
Other than some letters like these that didn't look quite the same, the jaw area and lower eyelid also showed some discrepancies that might not attribute to normal die wear?

[SRukke]

The die match is between the first two coins. A third coin was added into the mix for comparison of lettering and style but is not a die match. But the first two are definitely matches.

[Paddy]

Yeah. I now see the die match. I have been looking at the third coin added and comparing to the first. Of course they wouldn't match. Put numbers on these things from now on. Thanks.

If they are die matches and the lettering is modern on one, shouldn't both then be modern?

The discreprancies that we see, could they simply be a result of the strike?

[Pscipio]

After finding this thread today, I can disclose that I was the seller of the coin in question. I fail to see why it should be a forgery. The style looks unproblematic to me and the die match should certainly settle this doubt, unless someone thinks that both coins are struck from modern dies - which would be a very far stretch considering the style, appearance and different wear. The lacking detail that brassnautilus is showing is no retooling of a transfer die but simply a partially clogged die, a common feature on Roman coins. The coin looked struck in hand, with very minor porosity, also nothing unusual. I attach my original picture for comparison.

Nontheless, I did offer to rinhen to return the coin to me for a full refund when he first expressed his doubts to me, an offer that naturally still stands.

Lars

[Lee S]

Ive been following this thread with interest... I personly could not see any problem with the coin, ( not that that means anything!!) but if it has been inspected in hand, and sold by a Procurator Monetae then I guess that puts the whole matter to bed!!

[Paddy]

I agree with Lee and I have found this thread instructive and nice to follow.