Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Early Black Friday 20% Off Store-Wide Sale Already Started!!! Layaway and reserve are not available during the sale. Shop now and save! Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Early Black Friday 20% Off Store-Wide Sale Already Started!!! Please call us if you have questions 252-646-1958. Shop now and save!

New & Reduced

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Reading For the Advanced Collector / Re: Coins of mythological interest
« Last post by Virgil H on Today at 07:54:12 pm »
I know I have said this before, but I just love these entries. Thank you once again.

Identification Help / Re: Late Era Roman pt 4 help identify
« Last post by Victor C on Today at 07:33:22 pm »
A lot of coins have historical significance. This type is a bit more scarce than some late Roman bronze, but would only interest a few collectors.
Identification Help / Re: Late Era Roman pt 4 help identify
« Last post by Alan M3 on Today at 07:06:43 pm »
Last one I apologize

Wow great history Victor! Does the fact it is a historical issue make it more valuable to collectors?
You’re right—I was half kidding.  Good point about the specific soil, too.
I really want someone to take on the issue of the encrustations.  That to me could easily resolve this whole issue.  I'm tempted to bury one of my gold coins for a year and see if any encrustations appear in the recesses!

May I ask a stupid question?
Does it really make any difference if it comes to encrustrations what noble metal the coin is consisting of?
If yes why?
Do we really have different mineral encrustrations on silver and gold coins?
I do not think that there will be any difference if you burry a gold or silver coin under the same conditions, the minerals only need a place where they can grow.
The gold and silver may be reacting too with elements in earth but I do not think that this is actually really influencing which minerals are growing on the coin and how they are growing.

I think that the environment will influence:

time burried
the earth, what elements are in the earth and how much water

So the coin should be burried in Romania for a comparable result.

To make minerals grow very fast is not any problem (you only need high temperature) but they will have a different growing structure than very slowly growing minerals (normal temperature) on authentic coins.
Good points, but I note that some of those questions were answered in the essay, and there was also some interesting additional evidence posted online by Tejas concerning cast gold imitations from the area of Ukrainian and Romania (I think that is where they are from). Also, this was a team with Paul as the lead author—there was indeed a numismatist on the team, the curator at Glasgow, and I believe one other classicist.

All this isn’t to defend the coins—they certainly look like ridiculous forgeries, but also almost so ridiculous that they could be crazy prestige issues for a short-lived general elevated to Emperor. Personally, I’d like to see the encrustations studies in the way you state because the entire argument rests on the encrustations, IMO.  It is a falsifiable thesis, in other words, and I think the study is plausible enough that someone should try and determine if it is false.

Is it possible to remove mineral encrustrations from ancient artifacts and the making them stick on fake coins without glue?
I am not sure if glue would be actually noticed but it would be not sophisticated to do so.

To minerals, in school we did mineral breeding. it was really fun.
For me it the growing structure of the minerals would be interesting, fast growing and fine structure or slow growing rough structure.
i am very sure that this minerals can be produced artificially (why not?), the only question is if the managed to copy the growing structure.
Identification Help / Re: Late Era Roman pt 4 help identify
« Last post by Victor C on Today at 05:39:25 pm »
It's either Constans (DN FL CONSTANS AVG) or Constantius II (D N FL CONSTANTIVS P F AVG) but the legend is not completely clear to me; though I am leaning more towards Constans. The reverse is SECVRITAS REI P; Securitas standing facing, legs crossed, head turned right, holding sceptre in right hand, left elbow leaning on column. It was struck in Rome circa A.D. 337- 340.

After the death of Constantine on 22 May 337, there was an interregnum of some three months before his three sons were proclaimed Augusti on 9 Sept 337. It was during these three months that “The Great Massacre” occurred, when most of the other male members of Constantine’s family and their supporters were killed. During this period all the mints continued producing the GLORIA EXERCITVS coins except Rome, which was controlled by Constans. In Rome a new type was issued—SECVRITAS REI PVB. Constans apparently wanted the citizens to believe that the security of the Empire had been protected by the massacre.
We can get many helpful and useful information in history form different sciences (multidisciplinary), so this is actually great.

But this different sciences should complement each other and all arguments for and against the own opinion should be published not only what is supporting your position.

Here we seem to have a Geologist who checked the encrustrations, I assume that this encrustrations are minerals and a subject of direction of mineralogy.

His argument seems that the scratches and encrustrations can not be produced artificially, if this is actually true the coins must be authentic ancient coins, if it is not true and forgers knew and know how to do it, then he lost his very best arguments for authenticity!
My question is how does he know that the scratches and encrustrations can not be produces artificially, did they try to do so and asked really really good chemists and mineralogists if it is actually possible, ?(I fear they did not)
Did they compare the encrustrations and scratches with encrustrations and scratches on old fake (1500-1800)? (why not)
I assume that they only compared the encrustrations and scratches on them with some authentic coins and though that they are similar or identical and so they must be authentic, too.

The idea itself is good, I look for patina (for bronze coins most important) and mineral encrustrations too if it comes to authentication and that will weight much but at the end I will authenticate the coin as a WHOLE and if the coin looks entirely convincing I will consider it authentic but if the coin looks bad I will not care much for mineral encrustratons and patina (because I know how good forgers can be). Some fakes are for example overstuck on authentic coins so here we have to look at the coin as a whole.

What I am missing is that an expert in the field of archaeometry checked the gold, when it was melted, from which mines it comes from, if the alloy is correct for this time and comparing it with authentic ancient gold artifacts and coins form this time and region.

Maybe an expert in chemistry and mineralogy checking if such mineral encrustrations can be produced artificially and comparing with encrustrations on authentic artifacts and coins from this time and later with old fakes (1500-1800) and modern fakes (1800-till nowadays).

Historian checking if there is actually evidence for the existance of Sponsianus or not and if it is plausible or not that he actually existed.

Numismatist and an expert for old fakes checking:

Are the coins form a known forger (similar or identical style and or fabric and or alloy or matrixes or die links to fakes know) ?
If you compare them with authentic coin (officially,unofficially and barbarian) and fake coins, do they have more in common with fake coins or authentic coins and what are the differences?
Why did they cast them, what is the reason for casting them?
Why and how do casted coins have different flan shape, centering and slippage and double striking, if you make casts that look like struck coins you should stike them? (maybe an experiment of a forger how to make strange but old looking coins)
Is plausible that Sponsianus has minted coins for himself and for other emperors like Philipp and Gordianus, if Sponsian is minting coins for himself it is plausible but to mint coins for other emperors only makes sense if it would help to himself as emperor for example if they are his ancestor (dynastic legitimation).
If they are barbarian imitations, then they would try to imitate already existing coins they got in their hands but I doubt that they really got some official coins from Sponisn in their hands which they copied so barbarians have invented coins of Sponsian or was Sponsian a barbarian?
Do coins showin Sponsianus really prove the existance of Sponsianus?
If barbarians copy coins they can misread legends on bad centered and or bad struck or worn coins, so maybe they misread the legend of a coin  and thougt it was supposed to be from Sponsian?

One problem is that "proving" that "Sponsianus" actually existed is a sensation and will bring the author fame and publicity (newspaprers etc.).
To prove opposite will not bring you much publicity (no one will cares), because it is alreay consensus for a long time for most numismatists that they are fake.
So it is more interesting for an author if the result will be that Sponsianus existed.

Identification Help / Late Era Roman pt 4 help identify
« Last post by Alan M3 on Today at 05:21:11 pm »
Last one I apologize
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
All coins are guaranteed for eternity