A Study of a Suspect Group of Lysimachus Bronzes (SNG Cop. 1168-1169)

[Mark Fox]

Dear Board,

This discussion regarding a suspect issue of Lysimachus bronzes of the Heracles/wreath of two grain ears type (SNG Cop. 1168–1169) was originally meant to be little more than a footnote to the following condemnation of a fantasy Roman provincial issue of Apollonia Pontica struck for Domitian:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=123627.0;all

This was because there was a suspicion (on my part) that both coin issues represented the handiwork of the same forger.  The thread subsequently snowballed into several interesting side discussions, the question of authenticity concerning the said Lysimachus bronzes being one of them.  Since the Lysimachus subject was my main contribution to the thread, and in order to maintain a level of focus to interpret and possibly resolve such difficulties, I have decided to move the evidence for the coins’ fakery here where the discussion will continue.  First a repeat of the old evidence:


*******
(December 03, 2020)

Dear Joe and Board,

Very well.  My evidence is as follows:

We will begin with obtaining an idea of the population and distribution pattern of these suspect regal bronzes of Lysimachus.  On Acsearch.info alone, I counted nine examples struck from the same pair of dies.     

1.  USA Auction House 1 (8 August 2007)
15mm; 2.67 g.
Starting Bid:  $100
Hammer Price:  $152

2.  German/Austrian Auction House 1 (4 August 2013)
11mm; 1.7 g.
Starting Bid:  €75
Hammer Price:  €160

3.  German/Austrian Auction House 1 (3 November 2013)
14mm; 2.2 g.
Starting Bid:  €50
Hammer Price:  €85

4.  German/Austrian Auction House 1 (1 December 2013)
15mm; 2.4 g.
Starting Bid:  €50
Hammer Price:  €50

5.  German/Austrian Auction House 1 (6 March 2016)
16mm; 2.23 g.
Starting Bid:  €40
Hammer Price:  €40

[Mark Fox]

The list continues…

6.  German/Austrian Auction House 1 (3 April 2016)
15mm; 2.11 g.
Starting Bid:  €40
Hammer Price:  €90

7.  German Auction House 2 (15 May 2016; now on VCoins)
16mm; 2.25 g.
Starting Bid:  €50
Hammer Price:  unsold

8.  German Auction House 2 (23 April 2017 & 24 February 2018)
15x13mm; 2.63 g.
Starting Bid:  €50 (€20 in second auction)
Hammer Price:  unsold (both times)

9.  German Auction House 2 (31 August 2019; reappeared on eBay by German Auction House 3 [28 November 2020])
16x15mm; 2.47 g.
Starting Bid:  €75 (€1 on eBay)
Hammer Price:  unsold (€53.55 on eBay [~$63.43])

[Mark Fox]

The above list by no means offers us a full picture of the distribution pattern, but there is definitely signs of a pattern nonetheless, where the coins seem to appear on the market in small batches.
 
Individually, each coin looks highly convincing in most cases, some with even flaking surfaces that suggest that some of the flans are at least ancient.  It is only when we group a lot of them together like this that the illusion starts to flicker, as on a television set.  Here we fail to see a single specimen that looks naturally worn.  The few pieces that are in less than ideal condition look like they went through a pinball machine for a while rather than circulation.  Also, where are the expected sediments and/or concretions, especially on the edges?  Only coin #5 has appreciable sediments, but which look like they are just sitting on the surface and can be brushed away a bit too easily.  The color also bothers me as it does not match the generally lighter and yellower soils/concretions adhering to a lot of obviously genuine examples.

Now, let’s examine the problems with the design elements.  For that purpose, we will pinpoint and discuss several problem areas on coin #9.       

A.  The drooping leaves form a strange heart shape, unlike any other Lysimachus bronze I have seen of this type.  From my research, even the dies exhibiting a certain “wildness” do not appreciably deviate from the basic design in this way.   The following specimen of somewhat irregular style might be the closest in similarity I have come across so far, which may be partly due to the fact that the reverse is off-centered:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-151609

B.  Where is the bottom drill hole on the upsilon?  I almost, if not always, see signs of one in this location on obviously genuine coins in high grade.  Here instead, we see the bottom of the upsilon terminate in a dagger-like point, almost as if the engraver of this coin didn’t fully understand or appreciate the purpose of the drill holes.   

C.  This is a very puzzling artifact of the engraving process.  How did the left leg of the alpha cut into the stem of the barley plant like this without merging?  We know from genuine coins, such as in the following example from FORVM:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=92902q00.jpg&vpar=18&zpg=99484&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins2/

…that the wreath was probably engraved first and then the inscriptions later.  Other specimens with very crooked and crowded-looking lettering lend further support to this view.  This makes it even harder to visualize how an ancient die cutter could have pulled off this tiny engraving feat and to understand why he would have wanted to bother in the first place.  Of course, the situation might be less hard to comprehend if the early die-making stages began as images in a graphic design software program and/or had a preliminary model made in a material such as plaster. 

D.  Oh, boy… What the heck is going on here?  A knot?  How cute.  Also probably otherwise unprecedented for this coin type.  On normal examples, the stalks of barley simply cross each other at the bottom of the “wreath.”   

[Mark Fox]

Finally, in spite of all the suspicions raised above, are there any die-identical or similar coin specimens as the ones under scrutiny, lurking in the following museum collections?     

British Museum (L):

1.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_EH-p291-31-Lys
2.200 g.

2.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1853-0716-91
2.290 g.

3.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1920-0805-104
2.060 g.

4.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1845-1217-142
2.380 g.

5.  https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1936-1109-3
1.830 g.

Bibliothèque nationale de France (P):
(Click on the “About” tab to view the object details.)

6.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10306372g
14mm; 2.43 g.

7.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8576960g
3.01 g.

8.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85769629
1.65 g.

9.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8576958d
1.13 g.

10. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8576959t
3.02 g.

11.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8576961w
2.29 g.

12.  https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b103299783
3.61 g. 

American Numismatic Society (NY):

13.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77430
3.62 g.; 12h.

14.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77437
3.13 g.; 2h.

15.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77436
2.65 g.; 12h.

16.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77439
2.42 g.; 9h.

17.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77440
2 g.; 9h.

18.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77441 (‘Α’ in exergue)
1.45 g.; 9h.

19.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77442
1.21 g.; 3h.

20.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77443
2.98 g.; 10h.

21.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77444
2.29 g.; 3h.

22.  http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77438
2.98 g.; 10h.

Nope, unless a grotty specimen like #12 is hiding something.  There could be a knot of some kind joining the two barley stalks together, but the level of corrosion makes that very hard to confirm without having another die-identical specimen around for comparison. 

It is for the above reasons, taken collectively, that I have tentatively condemned the smirky Lysimachus bronzes under suspicion as modern forgeries.  I could go on and present even more evidence, but I probably should leave it for here for now.  Hope some of this cured someone’s insomnia if nothing else. 


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

[Mark Fox]

Hello again!

Now for some new content.  

In response to the above findings and their interpretations, Altamura made several important observations/critiques which I will now address:

... Very well.  My evidence is as follows:

That's really very detailed and indeed, there are many oddities .
But I not always can follow your arguments.

Yes, I quite agree, this is looking like one of my crazy article projects…  

... some with even flaking surfaces that suggest that some of the flans are at least ancient. ...

Did I understand that right, that some are modern fakes on ancient flans? Overstruck on old coins with patina where some parts have chipped off? I never had heard about that, and I am not sure whether this is technically possible. We have this with silver coins, but these don't have patina as on bronzes.

For the most part, I think this topic has already been adequately covered in the original thread.  That said, I will add here that a suitable host coin doesn’t necessarily need to be a very worn specimen.  A grinder of some kind could be used to obliterate the high relief points of the original coin.  It would therefore be interesting to see if there are any examples of the smirky Lysimachus bronzes where the patina and/or sediments around their edges is demonstrably different than what is covering their fields.  Right now, I am currently undecided if ancient flans were used in the minting of the suspect group.  Besides the already mentioned flaking, which could be seen as evidence in favor of the ancient flan theory, I also couldn’t help but notice the somewhat strange obverse texture of coin #3.

... Also, where are the expected sediments and/or concretions, especially on the edges?  Only coin #5 has appreciable sediments, ...
On coin number 6 you also have a non-homogeneus surface, number 8 shows some deposits too.

I said only coin #5 had “appreciable sediments.”  But you are right about my neglect to pay closer attention to the lesser foreign deposits on other members of the group, #8 in particular which do look very convincing when viewed up close.

... but which look like they are just sitting on the surface and can be brushed away a bit too easily. ...

I acquired more than one coin where I thought exactly this looking at the pictures and was corrected when brushing  .

I agree your past experiences could play out here as well.  We just won’t know for certain unless the coins are given a good brushing.

... A.  The drooping leaves form a strange heart shape, unlike any other Lysimachus bronze I have seen of this type. ...

That's right. But why should a forger do that where pictures of original coins are easily available?
And do we never have single dies in ancient coin series which are in some sense "aberrant" compared to all others? I don't belive that (but admittedly don't have an example neither  ).

Well, in imagining a situation where the coins in the present case are indeed false, and the forger’s modus operandi was nearly flawless, then this thread would likely not exist.  But even in our reality there is room for what you propose.  I have wondered for a while if the suspected forger used real coins as models, but reinterpreted certain aspects of the designs to use as a defense if a time were ever to come when he would have to defend his work as an innocent artistic pursuit.  (I say this while thinking of a rather ridiculous looking Scythian bronze forgery that still may be another of the suspected forger’s products.)  There is also the possibility that his coin models were worn or slightly corroded, the missing details on which he had to reproduce with some guesswork.  As for your valid point about the possible existence of genuine coins of misfit style within the coin type under study, please see some of my later comments.

... B.  Where is the bottom drill hole on the upsilon?  I almost, if not always, see signs of one in this location on obviously genuine coins in high grade. ...

Perhaps the die cutter simply forgot it and renounced on it when drawing the lines of the letters?
There are specimens where you don't see the hole neither which have a similar elongation of the letter to the bottom: http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.77438

This is of course possible.  We could also employ the same kind of reasoning to soften nearly every other concern I have drawn attention to—when each issue is weighed separately, that is.  My main question in this whole investigation is how to explain the crowd of problems existing on the same coin, when taken together.  In regard to the ANS coin that you think may also sport a missing bottom drill hole on the upsilon, I detect a slightly raised circular area near the end of the letter’s foot.  It could be that the engraver continued to cut the groove a tiny bit past the drill hole.  To help confirm or disprove this theory, I tried to find another die-identical specimen, but have frustratingly come up shorthanded so far.  Ironically, what the exercise did do was once again highlight the unusual number of the suspect bronzes roaming about.  Finding die-identical examples of unquestionably genuine coins seem to be a much harder task.

... C.  This is a very puzzling artifact of the engraving process. ...

If the groove for the wreath has been made first and you then begin to drill a hole nearby, then a bit of metal could be pushed up at the rim of the hole forming a little wall. I have no own experience with engraving in metal (do you have?), but I wouldn't say that this is impossible.

Yes, I can also envision what you are describing and am rather disappointed in myself for not considering the possibility earlier.  As a result, I have spent quite a bit of time in searching for other reverse dies sporting letters that are overlapping into the wreath.  Attached are a few examples, which admittedly do not give us a clear picture (the lower iota on the first pair, for instance, may in fact be a leaf!).  The suspect bronzes are typically found in high grade whereas normal specimens of the Lysimachus type under study are not.  That being said, it seems to me that a wall of metal could form in the manner you described, although to the degree as we see on suspect coin #9 remains to be confirmed.  No, I do not have an engraving background (or not yet anyway), but I do have a deep interest in metallurgy (if that matters at all).

... D.  Oh, boy… What the heck is going on here?  A knot?  How cute.  Also probably otherwise unprecedented for this coin type. ...

This indeed looks strange.

But generally this coin type is not among the master pieces of greek coinage. If we look alone at the position of the legends within the wreath (on the genuine coins) we see how carelessly the dies have been produced. So in my eyes these little deviations you gathered are still within the scope of this carelessness.

In the course of other research among “normal” looking Lysimachus bronzes, I found two specimens sporting what looks like a small wreath knot and one with drooping leaves that form a rough heart shape.  An example of each is attached.  So yes, such misfits do seem to exist as you suspected, but it should also be noted that the style of all three coins are rather on the wild side.  When examining the suspect group of bronzes, one sees a strange mixture of irregularities and design elements that conform strictly to coins struck from dies of fine style.  This, for me, is what makes the smirky coins stand out as unusual from a purely artistic standpoint.

What is disturbing is in fact the number of these little oddities. So I'm not 100% convinced that these coins are fakes, but they indeed look suspicious to me  .

I also wonder why someone should produce these forgeries. The coins are not among the really expensive ones, and when you are selling only some here and there I doubt that the outcome, from a financial point of view, is worth the effort needed. But perhaps there are forgers who simply want to show (to whomsoever) that they can do it  .

I initially wondered what I was doing, but I am glad I made a habit of posting the prices the suspect bronzes sold for at auction.  You can see the going rate (for the most part) wasn’t too bad in the early years (assuming circa 2007 was when the first pieces appeared).  As mentioned before, normal Lysimachus bronzes seem to be rather hard to locate in decent condition.  There is a reason why the author of HGC chose one of the smirky bronzes as his plate coin for the type!  Besides the other specimens I know about, there are likely a lot more I haven’t located yet, so we probably don’t have the best idea yet how profitable this hypothetical venture was.  Also, when you think deeper about it, the Lysimachus bronze type in question is relatively simple to copy, possibly even more so than the ubiquitous Macedonian horseman bronzes of Philip II (when their reverses are concerned).  A forger with long-term ambitions and some common sense is not going to risk his career and freedom by forging high valued material until he has worked out the details fooling dealers with humbler types that aren’t going to elicit as much attention.  That is my opinion anyway.

[Mark Fox]

Okay, now for the new batch of smirky bronzes.  It appears I was a bit sloppy before in my scouring on acsearch.info!  
  
10.  Austrian Auction House 2 (1 June 2007; also illustrated in HGC 3, part 2—thanks Pekka!)
1.92 g.
Starting Bid:  -- (Estimate €80)
Hammer Price:  unsold (thanks to Robert Kokotailo for this detail)

11.  German Auction House 4 (15 October 2013)
3.18 g.
Starting Bid:  €96 (Estimate €120)
Hammer Price:  €100

12.  USA EBay Seller 1 (1 February 2016; Item #231812263677)
15.3mm; 1.91 g.
Starting Bid:  $0.99
Hammer Price:  $98

13.  USA Auction House 2 (20 June 2017)
14.39mm; 1.95 g.; 11h.
Starting Bid:  $45 (Estimate $75)
Hammer Price:  $60

14.  German Auction House 5 (17 March 2018)
14mm; 2.13 g.
Starting Bid:  €15 (Estimate €15)
Hammer Price:  €15

[Mark Fox]

More...

15.  German Auction House 2 (17 November 2018)
14mm; 2.39 g.
Starting Bid:  €20
Hammer Price:  €20

16.  German Auction House 2 (24 August 2019)
15mm; 2.41 g.
Starting Bid:  €30
Hammer Price:  unsold

17.  German Auction House 5 (14 April 2018)
Group lot—no measurements.
Starting Bid:  €25
Hammer Price:  €40

18.  German Auction House 5 (28 July 2018)
Group lot 1—no measurements.
Starting Bid:  €30
Hammer Price:  €40

19.  German Auction House 5 (28 July 2018)
Group lot 2—no measurements.
Starting Bid:  €20
Hammer Price:  €55

What does this new group show us?  More compelling dirt and corrosion-related products to be sure, but which, when taken as a whole, now give us a dizzying assortment of patinas and surface features that do not comfortably conform to what is commonly seen on normal bronzes of the same type when they, in turn, are taken as a whole.  It is as if someone was experimenting with what would look best and/or trying to draw attention away from the fact that all the coins are die-identical.  In the group lots, one can see how their unusual style and shallower relief makes them stick out as somehow different from other Greek bronze types.     

[Mark Fox]

Coin #11 is particularly interesting with its distracting spike emanating from Heracles’ chin.  The reverse of the same coin looks worn, with the left grain stalk clearly detached from the knot.  This got me thinking about the die states within the group, an investigation that yielded confusing results.  Consider the marked examples below (which may or may not be the best pieces in the group to illustrate my point).  On the first coin, the die crack on the obverse is very faint.  The other two marked areas also look to be in a fresher die state than what we see on the second coin with the clearly defined chin spike.  So far so good until we come to the third coin with what I initially perceived as slightly blobbier lionskin headdress details due to die wear.  The knot area on the reverse looks fresher on first glance than the second coin, but that may be due to a bit of dirt and the effects of the “double striking.”  In any event, where is the die crack now?  Why is it so faint if present at all?  I have encountered similar difficulties in trying to make sense of the striking sequence of these coins where certain details seem to drift in and out of a worn state (especially the drill holes in the reverse inscription).  A normal weak strike wasn’t completely satisfactory to me as a reason.  This all felt puzzling until I realized what I was seeing might be evidence for die-squeezed coins rather than die-struck.  This needs a little further explanation. 

I am far less familiar with the process of die squeezing than traditional coining techniques, but can imagine there is more control with the amount of pressure that is applied during the squeezing/”striking.”  Going back to the idea of ancient flans, this could potentially be a safer way to impress the designs without damaging such an old piece of metal.  However, if such a repurposed coin is used, we can expect its shape and surfaces to be uneven to say the least, especially if it is a Greek bronze.  A less than flat flan might be a good feature overall, as a smart forger would want his end product to retain a slight cupped shape if possible, as is expected of ancient Greek hammered coinage of the period we are interested in.  It would likely come at a cost, though.  The way I see it, it would be more challenging to fill every crevasse of a die via a gradual squeeze than a swift, sharp impact from a hammer.  The suspicious “die wear” discussed earlier may, therefore, be the result of incomplete die squeezing, due to an uneven flan, inadequate pressure, or both.

[Mark Fox]

Finally, I would like to end this ridiculously long series of posts with one more smirky Lysimachus bronze I stumbled across, this one with three known auction appearances:    

20a.  German Auction House 2 (30 November 2018)
14mm; 2.39 g. (same as #15); O1/R2.
Starting Bid:  €30
Hammer Price:  unsold

20b.  German Auction House 5 (22 April 2019)
Group lot—no measurements; O1/R2.
Starting Bid:  €15
Hammer Price:  €15

20c.  German EBay Seller 1 (BIN current as of this writing; Item #143436149921)
15.5mm; 2.934 g.; O1/R2.
BIN:  €24 (~$29.07)

This piece needs to be discussed separately because it was struck with a different reverse die!  The inner top leaves of the wreath droop in a similar fashion to the ones on the other die, although I am undecided if there is a wreath knot present on the new die.  At first, having only seen the coin on eBay, lathered with a generous amount of highly convincing sediments, I was greatly perplexed.  Were the suspect Lysimachus bronzes copied from an authentic obverse?  Or were all the coins under question actually real?!  Good grief!  Eventually, I located the strange coin’s two other auction appearances which made it clear that it had floated around the market in an identical manner to some of the other smirky bronzes I recorded.  The other pictures were also more instructive, revealing a wear pattern that is very hard to reconcile with normal circulation.  As two examples, the highest points of the lionskin headdress and grain ears have somehow evaded intense handling while Heracles’ face/forehead is worn smooth, the most I have probably seen on one of the smirky bronzes.          

As a group, these die-squeezed or struck Lysimachus bronzes form a strange lot which is getting more and more bizarre with the addition of new members to the party.  If one of them is taken out of that context and studied alone, then the peculiarity is greatly lessened, but is still there as referenced in many of the points I outlined above.  

I think I will leave the discussion here and finally get this research posted!
    

Best regards and Merry Christmas!

Mark Fox
Michigan

[Jay GT4]

Mark, thank you!  A very thorough presentation with convincing evidence.  Thanks again for all the time put in to this.  I find the use of an ancient flan with pressed dies most intriguing.  

[Din X]

" I find the use of an ancient flan with pressed dies most intriguing.  "


There is has not been any evidence posted for this!!!

I have already written in fake reports that I have serious doubts that the Nero and Nigrinian are overstruck on ancient flans (this seems to be only an opinion, without evidence or arguments mentioned of the mebers who posted them to reports and others seem to rely bind on this informations).
The 2 Sicilain Bronzes could (on other thread was a post by Joe to 4 "overstruck coins in fake reports) be really overstruck on ancient flans but after having seen many hundereds of them in pictures and many in hand I rather think that they have artificial patina, but this is not always so easy to tell based on such pictures. I first thought that my Sicialian dies would be modern hand cut dies because well respected memebers of lamoneta and the guy of numismaticfakes.wordpress.com (who I still think could have been Taras, and  this blog started soon after he left here and lamoneta) have condemned die matches due to wrong style. wrong style means for me modern dies.
When I noticed that the my dies were die matches to 100% authentic coins, I realized that there must be something wrong and lamoneta was telling bullshit, they are sometimes right but too but often for the wrong reasons (would be off topic). I then looked for recutting on my dies and die flaws and die breaks and ghost lines and other individual characteristics from the mother to connect fake with my fake dies, because fakes  and authentic coins can exist form these dies. And one of the most respected expert for Sicialan Bronze coins asked me recently for good pictures of my dies and I was wondering why and then I realized that he still thought that at least some of them would be hand cut dies, and then I said what I said before that maybe out of my Sicilian dies only maybe 20 dies are hand cut dies (most of them are iron and some are nickel), the Bronze ones were all except 2 transfer dies. You can see it if a die is a transfer die or modern die if you know what to look for.
This is the problem if you rely blind on other because you think that they are experts, you will spread wrong information.

The patina of the Lysimachos coins looks convincing (patinas do not look artificial) and I see no traces of overstriking on ancient flans so I rather think they are authentic but of course that so many appear on the market can be suspicious without having die matches or die links to authentic specimens, but I fear that such cheap coins do not have the highest priority in museum collections to be digitalized, so we do not know for sure. And I doubt that Bulgarian forgers would use this method of overstriking on ancient flans only for one coin type there should be so more Bulgarian fakes out there with similar patina and no signs of overstriking (I do not think that they would be so sophisticasted and careful to look only for worn ancient coins for overstriking).
So that Bulgarian forgers would use ancient coins as flans would be a novum, so far I only know that they used modern planchets and artificial patina.
And i do not understand the relation between the Domitian and Lysimachos coin?
What is the connection?
The Domitian coins have really terrible 100% artificial patinas.
The Hanniballianus and others are different workshop and have terrible 100% artificial patina, flaking of patina is not evidence for overstriking most likely the patina is not stable and sticking well on planchet this is all.

Are all Bronze coins supposed to be overstruck if patina si flaking off?
Really ?
I can search if I have time for similar looking patinas in museum collections with flaking off or not and if I will find some then we will condemn them all even if they will come form excavations etc as fakes from modern dies overstruck on ancient planchets because they share the same or similar characteristics.

I post a Plotina Sestertius wher a letter is flaking off, patina is instable.
Coin is authentic and if the coins was tooled or smotthed does not really matter, becasue I only wanted to show that patina can flak off on authentic coins too.
And no discussion if tooled coins are still authetnic or not.


I always do authentication on patina on Bronze coins and I made so far only really good experiences with this method so far

I have stopped long ago to rely on opinions of others because I realized they make all mistakes and that it is best to verify their arguments and evidence and then decide for one side or no side (waiting for more informations or evidences).

[dwarf]

From the mid-70ies, when I first came into contact with ancient coins studying Numismatics until now as a coin dealer I have never handled a faked ancient bronze coin struck on ancient planchets.

To my opinion the coins presented by Mark are genuine.

Best regards

Klaus

[Din X]

I have searched

https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins?id=7522

And there is sadly only one of these   priv. coll. H.I., Lemgo, Lemgo, DE Provenience  Auction P... 42 (03.04.2016) 107.

But it shows that their experts think that these coins are authentic.
Almost all coins there are from museum collections, that coins are added there from private collections is very rare.



If there is any evidence that these coins are really overstruck on ancient coins or evidence that such patinas (they look as authentic as they can look in pictures) can be produced artificial then these coins are possibly fake.

If they are fake they either must have artificial patina or being overstruck on ancient planchets, if neither is the case here they can not be fake.


Edit: grammar corrections

[glebe]

I always do authentication on patina on Bronze coins and I made so far only really good experiences with this method so far

What method is that, may I ask?

Ross G.

[Din X]

I always do authentication on patina on Bronze coins and I made so far only really good experiences with this method so far

What method is that, may I ask?

Ross G.

You need to know how different the differnet patinas on authentic ancient bronze coins and objects can look like, and  how artificial patinas can look like.
Some artificial patinas  can be similar to authentic patinas but they are not identical to authentic patinas and can be distinguished from them.
In worst case you need really good pictures or in best case an examination in hand is necessary by someone who is knowing the differences and laying the coin next to authentic coins with similar patina and fake coins with similar patinas for comparision, but this is theory I have not seen so good artificial patinas so far.
This method is only as good as the skills of the person who is using it, this person needs  much experience and talent in distinguishing authentic and fake patinas.
I am by far not perfect but I think that I know the standard artificial patinas very well and I can detect them easily, the Domitan fakes have such a terrible atrifical patinas, which I have seen so often with the last years.
And I know normal authentic patinas, too.

I do look for example for coins with artificial patina because they are almost all fake (it is rare that authentic coins are repatinated, for example to hide damage form Bronze disease or tooling or smoothing) and then I look for twins if I suspect them to be cast fakes or in my archieve or forgerynetwork if they are fakes from modern dies. And I have found many cast fakes etc with this method so far proving that it is working very reliable.

If it is possible to find authentic coins with identical looks patinas it would speak for authenticity and would be a very strong evidence.
It is not possible to find fake coins with an idenitcal or at least similar artificial patinas it would speak for authentcity, too.
And if there is no prove for overstriking on the coins themselv and evidence that these Bulgarian forgers from this workshop are really using ancient coins as planchets that it would speak for the authenticity, too.

The evidence against them is manily due to style (and I do not have problems with the style) and no die links or matches to authentic coins, this of course justifies a closer examination of them but no condemnation. Interestingly they show different patinas and so the must be coming from different environments and so they must be found on different places.

[Jay GT4]

" I find the use of an ancient flan with pressed dies most intriguing.  "


There is has not been any evidence posted for this!!!

All I said was I found it intriguing.  I have never heard of using  pressed dies with ancient flans...

[Din X]

I have now search at coryssa.org for such coins sold on ebay.

If  fakes are on the market so long than we could expect that they will appear sooner or later on ebay in offers of fake sellers (this is not always true but in most cases).
I do not remember that I have these for sale by nfs in the past and couldn´t find any on coryssa.org (ebay archieve) that was sold by nfs.
This speaks for their authenticity, too.


 

[glebe]

It is noticeable that the first suspect type appeared in 2007, but then no further examples appear until 2013 (as far as we know).

I'm not sure how this fits the overall scenario - what was the presumed forger doing between these dates?

Ross G.

[Mark Fox]

Dear Din X and Board,

Thank you for your spirited feedback.  

In my admittedly lengthy text, I wrote that assuming the Lysimachus bronzes are fake, I was undecided if ancient flans were used in their manufacture.  If you agree that such coins could be faked without them (as I do), then there are other points made that are waiting to be addressed.  I felt the possibility of ancient flans was strengthened by the problems I encountered in studying the coins' die states.  Eliminating the subject of ancient flans, however, does not significantly change any of the problems I outlined in the study, unless you think otherwise?          

Yes, the patinas and surfaces of the suspect Lysimachus group are very convincing in general, as I noted also.  But are you looking at them all together as in a family photo?  Does the picture not look a bit odd with so many starkly different patinas on display for so many die-identical coins (*plus their unusually high average grade)?  The wild variation just doesn't sit right with me...  As for the flaking pieces (regardless of the cause of the flaking), do you know of many (comfortably) genuine specimens with this problem?  Maybe I overlooked some, but most, or all, the pieces I remember coming across were from the suspect group.  It is another thing that seems a bit strange to me.      

Maybe you are right in your view that there is no connection between the suspect Lysimachus bronzes and the fake Domitian provincials, but I briefly explained my reason for it in my first post in the other thread:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=123627.0

I am sorry, but I do not think we should feel reassured that the suspect Lysimachus bronzes are likely genuine just because Coin #6 is listed on corpus-nummorum.eu!  Private collectors are encouraged to submit coins to them for inclusion in the database.  I believe the lack you see of such coins is simply due to poor awareness and overworked staff.        

Thank you again for your time and effort in weighing in here.

  
Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan
      
*Edited (extra point added).

[Mark Fox]

Dear Ross and Board,

I think the picture is still too incomplete to draw many firm conclusions.  Remember, I dug up nine coins the first time and then went back and found eleven more, which filled in some gaps.  And I believe there was at least one other I had seen (in another group lot).  Most likely the presumed forger forged other coins as well.  He could be responsible for the Scythian piece I alluded to, but I am a bit hesitant of bringing that coin into the discussion and starting another research project...       


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

[glebe]

Dear Ross and Board,

I think the picture is still too incomplete to draw many firm conclusions.  Remember, I dug up nine coins the first time and then went back and found eleven more, which filled in some gaps.

Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan

Yes, in fact two suspect types appeared in 2007 (not one), but if anything this just reinforces my point.

Ross G.

[Mark Fox]

Dear Ross and Board,

By gaps filled, I was thinking of the years 2017 & 2018, which were rather underrepresented in the first batch of coins.  Besides the 2008 to 2012 period, we also have a gap spanning the years 2014–2015.  

As I was saying, though, the suspected forger would likely have tried forging other coins besides just the Lysimachus issue.  It would make little sense flooding the market with the same coin type minted from the same die pair year after year, but in a way, this did kind of happened, didn't it?


Best regards,

Mark Fox
Michigan  

[Din X]

The problem is first that these have been connected to Domitian fakes and that this connection is not conclusive, you will find on fakes of this Domitian foger workshop not such patinas and the fake sellers who are selling them have not even sold 1 of these Lysimachos AEs.
The next problem is that could be in theory of course possible to produce similar looking patinas artifically or by using ancinet coins as flans.
But what sounds easy in theory can be very difficult to impossible in reality.
This theory should be proven in reality but other 100% fake Bronze coins which have similar or identical patina from the same workshop.
We must assume that the "forger" if these Lysimachos AEs are fakes used their very sophisticated technic to produce other fakes with such patina.



This patinas would have fooled me and I assume they would have fooled most if not all collectors and Experts because I can not see any difference in this patinas to authentic patinas.
And the ones who will say I can see the differences between this Lysimachos patinas and authentic patinas, should explain the differences and post other fake coins with such patinas because I will then post many authentic coins with very similar or identical patina.  And I will loom if the supposed differences can only be found on the Lysimachos patinas or if they can be found on authentic patinas too and then they would not be really differences if they can be found on artificial patinas or patinas created due to overstriking on ancient coins as planchets and real coins.
It is not always so easy to tell on pictures if patinas are only very similar or identical, so I think that very simiar is ok for this case, too .
Flaking off patina can be found on authetnic ancient coins and I assuem it can be found more often on some sepcific patinas which can be under some conditions unstabel.

This is a very serious topic if we can not tell the difference between authentic patinas and artificial patinas or patinas resulting from ancient coins used as planchet how can we know then if Bronze coins are authentic or not if we can not use the patina for authentication anymore.

And this technic to produce such patinas can not only be used to produce fakes for modern hand cut die fakes it can be used for cast and more dangerous transfer die fakes, too.

How can we know if Bronze coins are authetnic or not if we can not use the patinas for authentication anymore?

[Joe Sermarini]

At this point, I would not want to sell one of these coins. If one comes my way I will examine it closely and if I am still not sure, send it to NGC. At this point, I am not yet convinced enough to condemn them or ask for fake coin reports.

[glebe]

The real problem with the suspect Lysimachus types is that they don't appear in museum collections. There is (so far) no trace of them before 2007.

Ross G.