Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Are imitatives fake or not?  (Read 1080 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Are imitatives fake or not?
« on: July 06, 2022, 05:06:22 pm »
There was a post in the Byzantine section about fake or imitative coins that confused me a bit. I know I have talked about this in the past, but it got me thinking again. I decided to make a new post rather than respond there.

Here is how I have come to define coins. I would be interested if this is a useful way to categorize them. When I see coin descriptions, I put it in one of my categories.

1. Officially minted coins
2. Contemporary forgeries or imitations: coins made in the same time period of the official coins (when they were circulating) and made to deceive. Upon thinking about it now, I will drop using the word "imitation" because it is confusing. It is an ancient fake, so more desirable than a modern fake.
3. Barbaric imitations: coins made by the various tribes copying established coins from Roman and various Greek and other states. These were not made to deceive, I believe, they were often just too obvious. These are coins from the various areas that produced coinage and are separate and collectible in their own right. I think many of these also fall into Category 1.
4. Modern fake: anything made well after the time the originals were produced, and made to deceive.

My tastes run to trying to only collect Category 1 and 3, but I have one in Category 2 and one in Category 4. Categories two and four are "fakes."

For me, the word "imitation" refers to actual ancient coins that copy another coin and are made in a different place than the coin being copied.

Thanks,
Virgil

Offline DzikiZdeb

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1975
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2022, 02:31:47 am »
These types of classifications are characterized by the fact that when we look at individual points, it turns out that each of them must be divided into 2, 3 ... etc.

The coins described in your step 2 cover very different phenomena. A mere fake struck for profit is far different from a situation in which city/country deciding to mint a coins that looks like another city/country's coins because the latter are widely recognized as legal tender.

Below is an example of the Gaza tetradrachm, designed in the manner of the Athenian tetradrachm:


https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3277566

Celtic imitation of Philip II's tetradrachm:


https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=9549094

Indian imitation of Tiberius' aureus:


https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3334183

Of course, you might try to qualify them as barbaric imitations, but are all three of the above coin issuers really barbarians? Wouldn't it be appropriate to distinguish between coins that were minted as a medium of exchange and coins that might have been money or perhaps jewelry?

Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2022, 10:57:12 am »
I also think that it is not so simple.

What exactly is an imitation? How close to the original has a coin to be to be considered as an imitation and when does it begin to be a creation in its own right?

Is "barbaric" a clearly definded scientific term? Probably not :-\.

What's about the posthumous Alexander coinage being minted for more than hundred years after his death? These are officially minted imitations made by greek cities :).
The same with the pseudo-rhodian coinage, officially imitating known coin types.

I personally don't care much about such classifications and decide on the basis of each coin whether I want to have it in the collection or not :).

Also ancient forgeries can be very interesting. For example it has long been thought that the serration of roman denarii, test cuts or the punchmarks (banker's marks) on early gold and electrum coins had been a means to prevent forgeries. But you also find plated coins with serration, test cuts or punchmarks not showing that the coin is plated :laugh:.
Or what technical effort was necessary to plate tiny coins like hemiobols? Was it really worth the effort?

Regards

Altamura

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2022, 01:33:36 pm »

Is "barbaric" a clearly definded scientific term? Probably not :-\.

Regards

Altamura

The term "barbarous radiates" came from early 20th century numismists who believed that these were copies of Roman radiates made by invading "barbarians" -that's to say, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who landed in Britain in the mid 5th century. This was soon proved wrong. In fact they were made contemporously within the Empire, in Britain and Northern Europe. It has been established that different areas have their own styles.

The result, though, is that now "barbarous" or "barbaric" is used to describe any coin that doesn't look quite right. It has perpetuated the idea that coins so described have been produced by barbarians.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2022, 01:54:21 pm »
I am going to respond to Altamira's posts after I think about them a bit more. Good stuff there I want to try to be thoughtful in my response. As for the word "barbaric," I agree that is a problematic word. There are a couple words long used in numismatics that fields such as anthropology dropped years ago. Barbaric is one of them. A famous anthropologist published a book in the early 20th century called "The Sexual Life of Savages." It was a groundbreaking book in the field at the time. Using the word "savages" would get you fired today. LOL. Identifying these coins by the tribe or political unit that made them (which is done) has to be better, even though we all pretty much know what the word barbaric means in this context.

Virgil

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2022, 03:53:23 pm »
I use the word fake only for modern fakes.

I use the word imitative only for coins that copied (imitated) other coins, with the intent to create circulating money, but without the intent to deceive. Imitatives were usually made about the same time as the prototype, but some were many decades later.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2022, 03:57:51 pm »
The following post was a sticky topic for at least a decade. Somehow it was made unsticky. I made it sticky again.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=1799.0
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Ron C2

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Qvod perierat adhvc exstat nvmmorvm
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2022, 05:18:14 pm »
Joe, while I agree with most of the article you linked to, it omits the ancient imitative coins struck officially by a city in the style and name of other rulers. For example, Cappadocia tetradrachms with the dates and monograms of the current Cappadocian ruler, but with the bust and reverse devices of antiochos VII of Syria.  These tetradrachms aren't fake and were not meant to deceive. They circulated as real tetradrachms in their time, struck imitatively to a type that circulated in Syria decades earlier.

To me, these are ancient immitative coins, and not to be lumped in to ancient forgeries or fakes. There are certainly other examples that fit this bill, such as all the archaic owl coins struck outside Greece, many years later.
My Ancient Coin Gallery: Click here

R. Cormier, Ottawa

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2022, 05:21:55 pm »
Thanks for your responses, Joe, I agree on the use of the word fake. I guess that is trying to say in the Byzantine post, but I thought those coins were not modern. I also appreciate the link, it is excellent, although I still have issues with the part about "barbaric" coins and, along with Altamura's great responses, I want to consider my own responses carefully. I am going to change my tag for the "contemporary forgery" I have to "ancient counterfeit."

Virgil

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2022, 05:24:16 pm »
Joe, while I agree with most of the article you linked to, it omits the ancient imitative coins struck officially by a city in the style and name of other rulers. For example, Cappadocia tetradrachms with the dates and monograms of the current Cappadocian ruler, but with the bust and reverse devices of antiochos VII of Syria.  These tetradrachms aren't fake and were not meant to deceive. They circulated as real tetradrachms in their time, struck imitatively to a type that circulated in Syria decades earlier.

To me, these are ancient immitative coins, and not to be lumped in to ancient forgeries or fakes. There are certainly other examples that fit this bill, such as all the archaic owl coins struck outside Greece, many years later.

Maybe you missed this part...

Imitative refers to ancient coins that copy another type, but which probably were not meant to circulate as the genuine original.  Some imitative types were used as currency in an area outside the area the original coin was issued.  Some may have been used as substitutes for the original coin in areas where coinage was in short supply. 
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2022, 05:25:41 pm »
Just saw your post Ron after I posted my last one. What you say is part of why I am not yet completely satisfied yet. The coins you (and Altamura) discuss, in part, I have always considered official, even if they do imitate another coin. More when I formulate a full response.

Thanks,
Virgil

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12103
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Are imitatives fake or not?
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2022, 10:10:23 am »
An imitative coin certainly can be official. Official for the imitators but not for the imitated. The term only means that it copies another type.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity