Possible Fake Caesar M. Mettius 480/2a

[carthago]

I'm not completely convinced this coin is fake, but more far more convinced then not after researching this morning.  Interested in other opinions...

This coin has a pedigree and has sold for BIG $$ in 2012.  It was sold at auction in 2008, 2012, and then withdrawn in 2014.  Interestingly, the coin was withdrawn in 2014 from the same dealer that sold it in 2012.  

Why do I think it may be fake?  First, we need to establish what it should look like.   It's pretty rare and only has 8 obverse and 7 reverse dies known to Crawford in all variations.  In particular, the lituus on this coin is shaped differently from the majority of the 7 left curving dies as it curves continuously outward towards Caesars neck rather than curling back in which the other dies do, so this make it easier to spot.  Also, the spear tip on the reverse terminates above the horses' head rather than well behind its head like all of the other dies. This same die combination is one of the 2 specimens in the British Museum and the other BM specimen shares the same reverse die.  A review of Alfoldi reveals the same conclusions to me.

Now that we believe we know what it should look like by comparing what we believe to be authentic examples, notice some problems with the coin in question.  The obverse looks pretty accurate so we're going to focus on the reverse by looking specifically the the left side of the coin.  On both BM examples, the wheel next to the border dots is very different.  The horses' hooves and the left M should be much closer to the border as should Juno's dress and the horse's tail.  On the BM example with the different obverse die, we can see what Juno should look like.  The hand should be at or very close to the border, at a different angle and actually attached to the spear which runs from the back hand across her body and to the shield.  The questionable coin gets all of this wrong.  

I cannot find a suitable seed coin at this point.  I believe this coin appears to be a fake made from transfer dies from an authentic example, probably offstruck on the left reverse requiring a forger to recreate these details with mistakes.  The corroded surface treatment and overall look reminds me a lot of this fake Caesar in my post here:  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=98747.0

Last auction description:

The Caesarians. Julius Caesar. January 44 BC. AR Denarius (19mm, 3.97 g, 12h). Rome mint; M. Mettius, moneyer. Wreathed head right; to left, lituus left and CAESAR • DICT downwards to left, QVART upwards to right / Juno Sospita, wearing goat skin headdress, in galloping biga right, brandishing spear in right hand and holding shield in left; M METTIVS in exergue. Crawford 480/2a; Alföldi Type II, 6-7 (A2/R1); CRI 98 (same dies); Sydenham 1057; BMCRR Rome 4135-6; Kestner -; RSC 36.

[glebe]

I cannot find a suitable seed coin at this point.

As usual.
I suggest that the odd features on this coin are simply the result of the top left section of the coin (and the left hand border) not being fully struck up.

Ross G.

[carthago]

One other significant difference I noticed.  Authentic examples have 4 border dots that span the diameter of the wheel.  The one in question only has 3. 

[spinkpa]

Comparing the BM coin including lower border and the withdrawn coin: The border dots don't coincide, most noticeably under the tt of 'Mettius'. The area outside the border also looks rather different, as if struck by dies of a different size.

[Molinari]

Maybe a stupid question, but: Did you ask the dealer why it was withdrawn?  Or is it from the big batch of withdrawn coins from the recent auction?

[carthago]

Maybe a stupid question, but: Did you ask the dealer why it was withdrawn?  Or is it from the big batch of withdrawn coins from the recent auction?

It was withdrawn due to authenticity concerns, but it had nothing to do with the recent mass withdrawal we've been discussing nor was it ever sold by that auction house. 

This coin, along with the others I've been posting, are ones I've been mentally tracking for a few years.  Very high quality Roman Imperatorial coins that appear to be based on known dies, but with significant and definable errors from those dies.  In other words, transfer die forgeries. 

I've only been motivated to do the research in the past couple of weekends since that mass withdrawal. 

[Joe Sermarini]

Fake coin report please.

[glebe]

Yes, it's clear that the dotted border has been re-cut at some point.
But blow the suspect coin up and have a good look - does it really look like a newly struck coin from a recently re-cut die? Why has only the border been re-cut, why not the head and arm of the figure, which don't look new to me (except perhaps for the two feathers). The missing spear-shaft was also not replaced. (In antiquity missing spear shafts are not uncommon, but surely a modern forger would have fixed this).
My overall impression is that this is an old and somewhat corroded coin from a worn die that was partially refurbished in antiquity.

Ross G.

P.S. The one really odd thing about this coin is the rough raised mound under the tail, although I'm not sure what that tells us. (Is it actually metal?).

[glebe]

Actually, take a closer look at the BM coin, particularly the border at lower left, and around the horses' feet and the legend - what do you see?
(Just search the BM online for 4135).

Ross G.

[Joe Sermarini]

(Just search the BM online for 4135).

Link please.

[Jay GT4]

(Just search the BM online for 4135).

Link please.

It's the one posted above with the black background.  But here is the link:

http://goo.gl/VaR8Ek

[glebe]

Remember though this is probably a collotype, so be careful how you interpret it.

Ross G.

[Andrew McCabe]

I want to put to bed the idea that this might be from an ancient recut die. The specific dating of this tiny type, struck in about a four week window max (due to the titles) and absolutely superseded by a massive issue from about 200 dies struck also over just a couple of months (due to different titles and moving historical events) really doesn't allow for there being any later issue or any need to resurrect old dies. The circumstances entirely changed and there would have been no reason to reissue coins after the death of Caesar with titles that had already been superseded by the time of his assassination. And the existence of the massive follow up issues with DICT PERPETVO shows that the die cutters had no problem cranking out vast numbers of new dies without needing to bother with recutting these outdated types. The later types were also struck in a very short window before Antony and Octavian started to issue their own coin, and moved to field mints. Again no possible motive to recut dies. It's clear we are looking at fakes here. And again emphasis on the same point, these have nothing to do with the recently discussed auction, with the '14 withdrawal being from a US based sale. But in all likelihood the same forgers might have been involved.

[Jay GT4]

That's a good point I hadn't considered Andrew! I already had it in my mind that it was a fake but this line of reasoning sealed the deal for me.

[carthago]

I want to put to bed the idea that this might be from an ancient recut die. The specific dating of this tiny type, struck in about a four week window max (due to the titles) and absolutely superseded by a massive issue from about 200 dies struck also over just a couple of months (due to different titles and moving historical events) really doesn't allow for there being any later issue or any need to resurrect old dies. The circumstances entirely changed and there would have been no reason to reissue coins after the death of Caesar with titles that had already been superseded by the time of his assassination. And the existence of the massive follow up issues with DICT PERPETVO shows that the die cutters had no problem cranking out vast numbers of new dies without needing to bother with recutting these outdated types. The later types were also struck in a very short window before Antony and Octavian started to issue their own coin, and moved to field mints. Again no possible motive to recut dies. It's clear we are looking at fakes here. And again emphasis on the same point, these have nothing to do with the recently discussed auction, with the '14 withdrawal being from a US based sale. But in all likelihood the same forgers might have been involved.

Very interesting data point that I hadn't considered either, Andrew!  This issue is a lot easier because there are only 7 reverse dies to review, and one of them have the inscription above the exergual line so really only 6 reverses to compare!

I hope everyone is enjoying the recent posts I've made on these coins and I've appreciated the input/debate.  For those interested in the method used, I recently posted a link to multiple articles on detecting counterfeit ancient coins here https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=98805.0.  The last in the series is about transfer dies and explains the same process I've been using to study the coins I've been posting using known die studies.

It's clear to me that we have a very enterprising forger out there in recent years that is putting out some very high profile transfer die fakes.  I can only speak to my area of interest, Roman Republican silver, but I can't imagine he/she is only fabricating those coins.  It makes me very 

Carthago

[glebe]

My idea was not that the die here was reused (anachronistically) some time after the initial issue of this type, but rather that it was refurbished during that issue.

Ross G.

[vitellio]

My idea was not that a die was reused (anachronistically) some time after the initial issue of this type, but rather that it was refurbished during that issue.

Ross G.

Hi Ross
no, it is not possible because you have a cut die ( in negative), and it is impossible  to fill it (particularly in antiquity ), even more if you wish to recut it (dots and several details).

Simply, it is a fake...

I think the denarius used to make the forgery was one of the British Museum (the second : lack of dots) or its electrotype ( tipical from B.M.), with some adjustments ( dots and so on).

When I will have more time I will try to demonstrate it...

Regards,
Enrico
 

[glebe]

My idea was not that a die was reused (anachronistically) some time after the initial issue of this type, but rather that it was refurbished during that issue.

Ross G.

Hi Ross
no, it is not possible because you have a cut die ( in negative), and it is impossible  to fill it (particularly in antiquity ), even more if you wish to recut it (dots and several details).

Simply, it is a fake...

I think the denarius used to make the forgery was one of the British Museum (the second : lack of dots) or its electrotype ( tipical from B.M.), with some adjustment ( dots and so on).
When I will have more time I will try to demonstrate it...

Regards,
Enrico
 

Thanks Enrico, and I agree there are significant problems with the idea of a re-cut original die.
And an electrotype copy could solve the obvious problem of where did the forger get an original of such a rare type. I wonder if there are records of such a copy or copies having been made by the BM.

Ross G.

[Andrew McCabe]

Just about every significant coin type in the BM collection was electrotyped at one or other time during the 19th century, with a large series made by Robert Ready and marked RR but many others exist, For example I've a non-RR BM electrotype in my collection. Maybe that's a good place to look for seed coins, although I'll be a little surprised if an electrotype will be of sufficient quality to be the seed for a truly convincing fake. My own example is pretty unconvincing and I'd imagine it would be even more unconvincing two impressions later. But let's see.

Here's some general info on the RR electrotypes. He made 22,000 (!)
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v13n30a12.html
and there's even a book:
B.V. Head "A Guide to the Select Greek and Roman Coins Exhibited in Electrotype", BM, before 1923

Addendum: Head's book has actually been uploaded here by Danny Jones. I'm browsing tethered to my phone so can't download it right now, but it can be found on Forum by googling the title.

[Carausius]

I hope everyone is enjoying the recent posts I've made on these coins and I've appreciated the input/debate.

Carthago:

I, for one, have found these posts and discussions very interesting and informative. They are great examples of forgery detection methods in process.