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: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?  (Read 1318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« on: June 28, 2021, 06:50:37 am »
The suspected transfer die fake seems to have identical scratches or flan flaws on throat, very soapy details and no new details which are not already present on the authetnic mother and the dotted border is struck identically.
In the dies there are dots but due to striking some dots can become incomplete, this is a individual characteristic from striking which dots become incomplete and how incomplete they will be.
Here the same dots became the same way incompelte as on the mother = 100% identical strike = impossible.
Of course new individual characteristics from stiking can occour on struck and somtimes even on pressed transfer die fakes, which were not visible on authetnic mother.
I have got an Lipanoff impint of this obverse (and from the same mother) used to produce transfer dies with electroplating, I can not prove that there is a direct connection but otherwise that there is not connecting can not or hradly be proven, too
it seems like that the reverse transfer die broke and was unusable after this strike, you can see the die break on reverse letters ICTO (of Victoria), I assume that this die break can not be found in the real ancient dies and finding authentic coins from same reverse die in a later die state would prove this and condemn the coin without a doubt to be a modern neo Thrakian product.
If a die broke and can not be used anymore to mint coins anymore and so no coins can exist from a much later die state becasue this will be then the last possible die state.
So I would appreciate more coins from the same dies or same reverse die because I could not find more.

The specimens here are all from different dies

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.5.dio.320



Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2021, 09:08:38 am »
Interesting, but I also see some scratches on the alleged authentic host which are not present on the transfer die.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2021, 09:23:15 am »
Interesting, but I also see some scratches on the alleged authentic host which are not present on the transfer die.

I guess that the other scratches have been either removed or were lost due to transfer loss.
And to remove scratches in field where everything is equally flat is easier and should not be a problem to any real forger than removing scratches from details with relief (this can be difficult).
The scratches will have on the imprint a higher relief that the surounding field and can be polished/flated away. But you can not polish flat them away so easily if the relief like on throuat is not flat there.
The scratches on throat are on my imprint of the authentic mother too but the others scratches are missing on my imprint like on the suspected coin.
I have seen this before on proven transfer die fakes that some scratches are copied from mother and others not so this itself is nothing special but I have asked myself the same question too and I only found the answer above but thre could be of course a better explanation I am not aware of.

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2021, 01:58:13 pm »
I have very little experience with identifying transfer die forgeries. My thoughts have focused on the small ‘pits’ seen on the neck of the obverse portrait of the “authentic host” coin, which Din has pointed out using red arrows. It appears the same ‘pits’ are seen on the “transfer die fake?” coin. If these ‘pits’ on the “authentic host” coin are a product of the planchet, then indications would be that the other coins are fake; if the ‘pits’ on the “authentic host” coin are from raised points in that die, then the ‘pits’ could be expected to show up on other genuine coins struck from that die. Finding another genuine coin from that obverse die, in a similar die state, might indicate whether the ‘pits’ originate in the die, or are of a planchet origin in the “authentic host” coin. Though the image of the “authentic host” coin is good, it is not good enough for me to be sure of what I see in those ‘pits’, however, the ‘pits’ in the “authentic host” coin look like they are possibly ‘sharp’ to me, which might indicate they are a property of the planchet, rather than in the die.

Was the Lipanoff impression made from the “authentic host” coin in this thread, or from a different coin? If made from a different coin, then it would seem to indicate the obverse neck ‘pits’ are in the die, though the Lipanoff image is also not of high enough resolution for me to see this as well as I would like.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2021, 02:19:01 pm »
That metal will be added to a metal die and this metal will have the shape of this scratches or die flaw is imho so unlikely that it can be compeltely neglected.
I never heart about that metal was added to a die and I do not really think that such free metal would have such shapes.
There seem to be only 2 coins from these dies and the blue imprint shows as perfect as an imprint can 1-on-1 the details of the authentic mother.
The blue imprint has all details of the mother but not so sharp and some small scratches in field (which can be found on the mother) are missing like on the suspected transfer die fake.
The suspected transfer die fake is missing parts of the dotted border which are in the blue imprint so this imprint can not be made from the suspected coin except the dotted border was exactly so recut as it was on the mother, meaning they must then have recut dots incomplete exactly the way they were on the mother from striking and not the way the are generally engraved in dies as complete round dots.
If you recut dotted border you recut round dots, like on real ancient or modern dies.

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2021, 03:35:24 pm »
I think my meaning has been lost.

I would like to determine whether the 'pits' seen on the neck of the "authentic host" are something that originates from the planchet / flan, or do they originate from the die that struck the 'authentic host' (caused by something like die fill, die debris, improperly prepared die, etc).

If the neck 'pits' on the "authentic host" originate in the planchet / flan and are unique to that coin, but you see identical or nearly identical 'pits' on another coin, doesn't it indicate that the other coin is a forgery? That said, are the 'pits' seen on the Lipanoff impression identical to those seen on the "authentic host"? If yes, was the Lipanoff impression made from the "authentic host" or from another coin? If from another coin, how do you explain the identical 'pits' on both the "authentic host" and the Lipanoff impression? The images of the coins in this thread are not good enough for me to match the 'pits' with certainty between coins. One image is of better resolution than the others, and it looks to be the image of the coin that you question as a possible transfer die fake.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2021, 04:58:28 pm »
My blue Lipanoff imprint was 100% taken from the authentic host and is an almost perfect copy of the authentic mother, if you would take an imprint of the authentic mother it would look completely identical as my imprint, I explained already in my last post, only two coins are known from these dies and the suspected coin is missing parts of the dotted border which can be found on my imprint and the authentic mother. My imprint has details missing on the suspected coin so how could the suspected coin with missing detials be used for my imprint?


The picture quality of the authentic mother is actually not the best but imho it is still visible that this scratches or flan flaws on the throat are most likely identical.
And even if scratches or flan flaws on the throat would not be completely identical you can assume how likely it would be that only two coins from these dies exist and both would have so simiar scratches or flan flaws on the same position.
But even if we neglect this point and think filled dies (I never have seen evidence that ancient dies were actually filled with drit etc.) there are still other serious problems visible on the suspected coin.


WE HAVE HERE ONLY  2 COINS FROM THE SAME DIES AND ONE IMPRINT PROVING THAT FORGERS HAD ACCESS TO THE AUTHENTIC MOSTHER AND THE CHANCE TO TAKE IMPRINTS AND SO THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE TRANSFER DIES.
NOT GOOD!
ONE OF THESE COINS WHICH IS SUSPECTED TO BE A TRANSFER DIE FAKE SEEMS TO HAVE IDENTICAL SCRATCES OR FLAN FLAWS AS THE AUTHENTIC MOTHER.
SAME SCRATCH OR FLAN FLAW WOULD BE A VERY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT ONE MUST BE A TRANSFER DIE FAKE.
If true suspected coin would be transfer die fake without a doubt, only problem bad pictures.
ONE OF THESE COINS WHICH IS SUSPECTED TO BE A TRANSFER DIE FAKE, HAS SOFTER DETAILS AS THE AUTHENTIC MOTHER AND NO DETAILS WHICH CAN NOT BE FOUND ALREADY ON THE AUTHENTIC MOTHER AND SHOWS IDENTICAL STRIKE AS THE AUTHENTIC MOTHER; THE DOTTED BORDER SHOWS IDENTICAL INCOMPLETE AND COMPELTE DOTS FROM STRIKING = IDENTICAL STRIKE.
This is very typical for transfer die and a very serious problem.
If you would make transfer die from the authentic mother and you would mint a coin with them the transfer die fake would look exactly as the suspected coin (no new details from the authentic ancient dies and same individual characteristcs from striking visible the way the dotted border is struck), transfer die fakes are struck or pressed so new indvidual characteristics from striking can be added like more dots become incomplete and different centering and parts visible on authentic mother can be off flan on transfer die fake and so missing.
Not good.

If the suspected coin would have any new detail from the authentic dies which can not be already found on the authentic mother then either this detail must have been recut or this suspected coin or the suspected coin can not be struck with transfer dies made be this authentic mother.
Generally we must expect to find the dotted border differently struck on different authentic coins meaning different dots will be complete and incomplete or missing (flat struck or off center) due to the strike or centering.
This is not the case here the dotted border is struck identically same dots are complete and same dots are incomplete and same area VG of AVG is flat struck and so dots missing.
If you have two authentic coins from the same dies you can generally find on each details which are missing on the other one due to different centering or strike, wear or corrosion.
In theory it can be of course possible but I have never ever seen that an authentic ancient mint state coin has no new details from the authentic ancient dies, which are missing on aother coin which has details missing on this coin, that would be a very huge coincidence.
If we have 2 perfectly centered and struck coins in mint state from the same dies this could be true.
But in really ancient coins are generally not prefectly struck and centered especially both at the same time and to find two from the same dies would be really difficult to pretty much impossible . 
But in reality this was so afr only true for transfer die fakes (if dies are not recut)  have only the details of the ancient dies which can be already found on the  authentic mother + individual characteristics of the mother form striking, environment and circulation.


Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2021, 06:35:24 pm »
I think it is likely that the "transfer die fake?" you provided an image of is just that, a forgery. However, if you are certain that the Lipanoff impression is from the "authentic host", then we only have one comparison to make. It would be better to find another genuine coin struck from this same obverse die.

Why would the forger go to all this trouble and then not clean up the neck of the fake die before using it?

In the cases of coins I've seen with suspected die fill, I felt the fill was most likely metal, not dirt; metal from previously struck planchets. I realize this is an unlikely cause of the 'pits' seen on the "authentic host", but it is still a possibility.

I would expect coins struck with a transfer die to possibly exhibit the same variations of striking that you can see on coins struck from a genuine die. They are doth dies and both are striking coins (even the fake die).

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2021, 03:17:53 am »
"Why would the forger go to all this trouble and then not clean up the neck of the fake die before using it?"

Maybe because they did not realize that this are scratches or flan flaws and they we're not in the ancient dies or maybe they did not  see them.
There are different kind of forgers but many forgers are not numismatics but artists or scientist, so they so not know such things


"It would be better to find another genuine coin struck from this same obverse die. "

I am very certain the coin is actually fake I only posted it here in the hope to get more pictures of coins with same obverse and reverse, as written before the reverse transfer die broke and there must be somewhere if not melted down in ancient times or still being burried in ground authentic coins from the same dies and same reverse die.
The reverse transfer die broke (you can see the the die break on letters ICTO going to the wing of Victoria) and so this die could not be used anymore, and forger  then must have used the still intact obverse together with a wrong reverse die from another emperor (Victoria reverse is from Maximinus Thrax) to strike/press fakes.

The transfer reverse die has the same die state as the authentic mother it was copied from but the new die break on reverse only exists imho in the transfer dies.
But there were most likely many more coins minted with the ancient dies after the authentic mother was minted because the die state of the reverse die of authentic mother is very fresh, so this ancient reverse die could have been used to mint many more coins easily.
If we find authentic coins from same reverse die but in later die state (more die wear, die flaws or break(s)), but of course without the die break from the transfer dies, we can clearly show that the die break in the transfer dies is only in transfer dies and not in ancient dies and all coins with a print of this break must be fake.

The scratches or flan flaws on throat are very well visible on the transfer die fake top picture of this post for comparison.

That the Reverse die of the suspected coin broke and that exactly this must have happened to Lipanoff too because there exist fakes with wrong reverse die, is speaking for my theory.
Theory Lipanoff made an imprint (my imprint) of the authentic mother and produced transfer dies, the reverse transfer die broke after minting the suspected coin but the obverse die which was still fine was then used together with this Lipanoff Victoria reverse die of Maximinus Thrax to mint the ebay fakes (see pictures of this 3 fakes in this post).
I Like forgers, some of them think really economic, they seem to think to throw an intact die away If the corresponding die broke is stupid and a waste of money.
If the Reverse die broke but obverse die is still intact this good obverse die will be combined by many forgers with a reverse die of which the corresponding obverse die broke.
There exist many Impossible hybrids/die combinations of different forgers and workshops and this is one of the explanations for them.

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2021, 11:32:28 am »

I am very certain the coin is actually fake I only posted it here in the hope to get more pictures of coins with same obverse and reverse...

I read your original post as you were looking for confirmation of your suspicion. With the subsequent posting of the coin images showing the incorrect reverse, the evidence is much stronger for the "transfer die fake?" coin being a forgery.

A service I have not yet used, but which I have reliable good reports on, identifies coins in old auction catalogs. While I currently only have reports of cases involving pedigree searches, it is felt this might also be useful for die studies (an inquiry might answer this question; it looks like they are currently offering a free trial).

This linked article has information on the technology:
https://culturalpropertynews.org/rediscovering-old-provenances-for-ancient-coins/

This link is to the service's website:
https://www.ex-numis.com/page/about.html

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2021, 08:39:53 pm »

A service I have not yet used, but which I have reliable good reports on, identifies coins in old auction catalogs. While I currently only have reports of cases involving pedigree searches, it is felt this might also be useful for die studies (an inquiry might answer this question; it looks like they are currently offering a free trial).

This linked article has information on the technology:
https://culturalpropertynews.org/rediscovering-old-provenances-for-ancient-coins/

This link is to the service's website:
https://www.ex-numis.com/page/about.html

Even if this service is not capable of using their images to find die matches for you, they might be able to find coins by RIC number or another reference used, like Cohen, etc. If they scanned their catalogs and other material with OCR, they might be able to give you a list of coins that you could then check for die matches.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2021, 10:48:03 am »
I know the references already, you can find this references easily in auction descriptions, although this descriptions can be of course sometimes wrong, too.
It is RIC 320 or "DEPEYROT - MONNAIES D'OR DE DIOCLÉTIEN A CONSTANTIN I, 1995" There Antioch 1/2.
I have OF COURSE the main book for this coins DEPEYROT and there is sadly no picture in plates of this coins.
And in museum collections I did not find a die match, DEPEYROT wrote that he knew from about 46 specimens (I assume he calculated coins from this emissions sold at auctions, too).

4 examples from Different dies are in museum collections (possibly more but not available online with pictures)

http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.5.dio.320

I have found another one with identical problems as the suspected coin (sopay details, no new details from authentic ancient dies, all details can be found already on authentic mother and same strike of dotted border) + a new huge problem the weight of the ebay coin is too high.
They are supposed to be "léger" (light) aurei with reduced weight authentic can be found with about 4,6g.
This one has 5.36g and Gold was the most precious metal so they were rather correct if it came to weight standars when it came to Gold.
The authentic mother has 4,56g the specimens in museums 4.686g, 4.63g, 4.50g and 4.08g.

It seems like the low weight is even written on the coins
I quote from auction description
""70" to the pound (=c. 4.63g)"
" Greek numeral O (=70) in lower left field"

Here is the coin

https://www.coryssa.org/1744983/subcategory_id/50/page/0/keywords/aureus/search2/yes/date_to/2021-07-01/use_checkboxes/0/search_title/on/period/all/period/all/

And one of these with wrong reverse die (I posted picture already in previous post), to show that I did not

https://www.coryssa.org/2181339/subcategory_id/50/page/0/keywords/aureus/search2/yes/date_to/2021-07-01/use_checkboxes/0/search_title/on/period/all/period/all/


Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2021, 01:20:29 pm »
I know the references already, you can find this references easily in auction descriptions, although this descriptions can be of course sometimes wrong, too.
It is RIC 320 or "DEPEYROT - MONNAIES D'OR DE DIOCLÉTIEN A CONSTANTIN I, 1995" There Antioch 1/2.
I have OF COURSE the main book for this coins DEPEYROT and there is sadly no picture in plates of this coins.
And in museum collections I did not find a die match, DEPEYROT wrote that he knew from about 46 specimens (I assume he calculated coins from this emissions sold at auctions, too).

4 examples from Different dies are in museum collections (possibly more but not available online with pictures)


I was suggesting the possibility of there being an authentic example of one of these coins, from the same die, in the old catalogs and other material that has been scanned by the service I linked to previously. The chance of finding something there would be greatly increased if that service has the capability of searching text in addition to images (i.e. RIC 320 = Cohen 469). At the time the article was written about this service, they claimed to have 130,000 coin images in pre-1970 catalogs (they continue to add to their database). This type of database did not exist when the RIC and Depeyrot books were written. Perhaps your coin/die in question is so rare that nothing would be found, but that seems like a good place to attempt a search.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2021, 01:51:41 pm »
One problem of  ex-numis are the costs , this could cost good money (service is not for free) and they will only search for old auctions before 2005, and in old auctions the pictures are generally very small and can be in best case used to find die matches or to see if it is the same coin but they can not be used for die studies to reconstruct which details were in the ancient dies at which die state.
And they actually do not even offer the service to search for die matches.
For me the case is clear but I am a perfectionist so an ultimate evidence is always the goal, but to spend much money for unsable bad pictures in old catalogues does not make sense for me.
And for me it is not clear why I should/have to spend money to prove coins to be fake, I do spend money if I think that the new information gained from spending this money are improving my knowledge how to detect fakes.
Here it will not help me to learn anything new.
I have an imprint of the other Tharx Victory reverse (in fake reports are only examples with another Victory reverse die), the dotted border of blue reverse imprint is coinsisting only of full complete dots so clearly modern dies.

 


Offline Hydatius

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • I love this forum!
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2021, 07:54:57 pm »
And in museum collections I did not find a die match, DEPEYROT wrote that he knew from about 46 specimens (I assume he calculated coins from this emissions sold at auctions, too).
https://www.coryssa.org/2181339/subcategory_id/50/page/0/keywords/aureus/search2/yes/date_to/2021-07-01/use_checkboxes/0/search_title/on/period/all/period/all/
I case you don't know, Depeyrot published a list of all the specimens he tabulated in a separate book, published in 2004, Collection Moneta no. 40, L'Or du bas-empire. Inventaire justificatif des tomes 1 et 2.

Richard
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire.

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2021, 03:40:25 am »
"I case you don't know, Depeyrot published a list of all the specimens he tabulated in a separate book, published in 2004, Collection Moneta no. 40, L'Or du bas-empire. Inventaire justificatif des tomes 1 et 2"

Thank you, I have ordered it, the book could be informative and useful.

Offline Hydatius

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • I love this forum!
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2021, 08:08:09 am »
Thank you, I have ordered it, the book could be informative and useful.
Yes, it provides that museum collections and sale catalogues that he used for his specimen counts.
  Richard
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire.

Offline Kevin D

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Diocletian Aureus Transfer die fake?
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2021, 12:00:00 pm »
One problem of  ex-numis are the costs , this could cost good money (service is not for free) and they will only search for old auctions before 2005, and in old auctions the pictures are generally very small and can be in best case used to find die matches or to see if it is the same coin but they can not be used for die studies to reconstruct which details were in the ancient dies at which die state.
And they actually do not even offer the service to search for die matches.
For me the case is clear but I am a perfectionist so an ultimate evidence is always the goal, but to spend much money for unsable bad pictures in old catalogues does not make sense for me.
And for me it is not clear why I should/have to spend money to prove coins to be fake, I do spend money if I think that the new information gained from spending this money are improving my knowledge how to detect fakes.
Here it will not help me to learn anything new.

I agree with your point about the cost of the service. The main problem for me (I would be looking for pedigrees, so same coins) would be not knowing how many 'hits' the search would turn up. You might get no hits and not be charged much at all, one or two hits and be happy to get a good pedigree at an acceptable cost, or a bunch of hits separated by a small number of years and have to pay more than you want for the information.

Regarding the quality of the images in old catalogs (meaning before 1970), I find that the majority of them are quite good, even excellent. However, up to a certain time the images were made from casts of the coins, rather than photographs of the coins themselves, so there can be details that are lost in that process. Still, these old images can prove quite useful. Where there can be a failing is in the case of a poorly scanned (scanned at an insufficient resolution) catalog. In an example, there are catalogs on the Internet Archive site, where you have an option of downloading catalogs in low and high resolution. Often, the low resolution option will give you an image that is literally worthless for doing anything with it, while the high resolution image is quite good.

From images made with casts, you might not get detail good enough for seeing the 'pits' on the neck of the aureus in this thread, but you should have a good chance of seeing something like the beaded border of this coin.

In the 1950s, the images in auction catalogs start to be made by photographing the coins, rather than casts. These can be even better.

I recently got a hard copy of Sotheby & Co.  ‘H. L. Haughton Collection’  30 April – 1 May 1958. I bought this because I have not been able to find an online digital version of this catalog. To my surprise, I found one of my coins in this catalog, Lot 156 (a Seleukid tetradrachm of Antiochos Hierax). The detail in the catalog image shows contact marks which are as small and fine as the neck 'pits' seen on the aureus in this thread. The coin images in this Sotheby catalog were made by photographing the coins, rather than from casts.

I don't know how good the images from Ex-Numis are, but the sample that they provide on their website looks reasonably good.

Too bad if they are not now doing searches for die matches or by text. Maybe they will be in the future.

When you get your copy of Depeyrot's list of sources, if any are found in the old Jacob Hirsch, Naville, or Ars Classica catalogs, take a look at these catalogs and images at the Heidelberg website (select the high resolution option):
https://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/Englisch/helios/

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity