Author Topic: out of place series of Antoninus (Read 29107 times)

Diederik · « **on:** December 25, 2005, 05:41:04 pm »

Just a few days ago I received this denarius of Antoninus Pius:
IMP.ANTONINVS AVGVSTVS bare head right;
TRIB.POT COS DES II Fides standing left, holding basket of fruits and ears of corn.
It is RIC 16 (scarce) or Cohen 1071
So, now you wonder what I don't know...
Coins of Antonine with TRIB.POT.COS (DES II) on the reverse nearly all belong to the series of Antonine as caesar under Hadrian. Two bronze coins RIC 523 with bare and laureled head have a similar obverse text as the denarius in question. There is one more coin RIC 15 with Aequitas, like this.
So what I wonder is: are these coins the first issues after Antonine became Augustus or... are they of much later date as most coins of the early issues as Augustus continue the IMP.T.AEL(IVS) CAESAR ANTONINVS text with AVG. added to the obverse or reverse text.
Moreover the text IMP.ANTONINVS is unique for these few coins; so in that respect they do form a kind of transition.
Any views?

Frans

curtislclay · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2005, 06:40:49 pm »

Clearly this is the first obv. legend of Antoninus as Augustus, since the reverses for the most part carry on his latest legend as Caesar, TRIB POT COS DES II.
Antoninus' second and third obv. legends as Augustus are IMP T AEL CAES ANTONINVS AVG and IMP CAES AEL ANTONINVS AVG, both still omitting PIVS; his fourth legend was IMP CAES T AEL HADRI ANTONINVS AVG PIVS, including PIVS for the first time, which was to remain a part of his obv. legend from then on. All three of these obv. legends occur with the new rev. legend PONT MAX TR POT COS, calling Antoninus Pontifex Maximus so clearly later than the first rev. legend taken over from his Caesarship.
My historical interpretation: Antoninus was with Hadrian when he died at Baiae on 10 July 138. The Senate intended to condemn Hadrian, and it was this anti-Hadrianic feeling which dictated the total elimination of all of Hadrian's names from Antoninus' first legend as Augustus, IMP ANTONINVS AVGVSTVS.
Antoninus, however, intended to have Hadrian consecrated. Either upon reconsideration, or as a result of communication from the emperor, Hadrian's gentile name Aelius was reintroduced into Antoninus' second and third obv. legends.
When Antoninus, escorting Hadrian's body, reached Rome one or two weeks after Hadrian's death, he will have obliged the Senate to stop equivocating and consecrate Hadrian, thereby earning the title Pius. So his fourth obv. legend included this new title, and also HADRI.
Antoninus' first legend IMP ANTONINVS AVGVSTVS is known only on denarii and sestertii, and is very rare. Strack recorded three types of denarius, in a total of eight specimens, and one type of sestertius, in three spec. with head bare and three more with head laureate.
This is the traditional and obviously correct chronology of Antoninus' coinage in 138, adopted by both Strack and Mattingly. P.V. Hill, however, proposed an utterly impossible chronology of Antoninus' coinage in 138, according to which his entire coinage as Caesar was supposedly struck after Hadrian's death as part of Antoninus' battle with the Senate to get Hadrian consecrated. Unfortunately David Sear has swallowed Hill's mistake in his new RCV II so we may expect this error to be copied for decades by the many collectors and dealers who rely on Sear's generally excellent handbooks.

Diederik · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2005, 06:55:26 pm »

Thank you Curtis!
It has all become much clearer to me now. I also realise that my article (of long ago) was not entirely correct (to say the least of it) in its chronology - the time schedule was much tighter than I expected. Thoiugh this coin is rated scarse by Mattingly, I have tried to find evidence of it on the WWW: I have not been able to find one single coin of this series! This indicates that it is much rarer.
Thanks again and a VERY MERRY XMas to you!!

Frans

Cibalia · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 2005, 03:20:22 am »

Thanks Curtis, a really informative read.

Diederik · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2005, 08:56:04 am »

Curtis,
Could you say how the consular dates should be coupled to the nomenclature you so clearly explained. In this respect my original order a,b,c,d etc was not really too far astray, but Antonine did 'retract' his consular claims for a while, didn't he? So where do you place that moment?

Frans

curtislclay · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2005, 10:49:09 am »

Antoninus as Caesar is first COS, then for a brief time (the coins are scarce) COS DES II.
For Antoninus as Augustus, COS DES II continues with the first obv. legend, IMP ANTONINVS AVGVSTVS, but the consular title reverts to COS only with obv. legends 2-3 as numbered above.
When Antoninus became PIVS for consecrating Hadrian, COS DES II almost immediately reappeared in his numismatic titulature. Obv. legend 4, the first to include PIVS, indeed still occurs with the old rev. legend PONT MAX TR POT COS; but this legend is extremely rare, doubtless lasting only a couple of days, and was soon replaced by IMP T AEL CAES HADRI (later HADR) ANTONINVS / AVG PIVS P M TR P COS DES II, which lasted until the end of 138.
Some scholars have regarded the brief disappearance of COS DES II from Antoninus' coins very early in his reign as a reflection of the dispute over Hadrian's consecration: Antoninus was saying to the Senate, "If you don't consecrate Hadrian, then I won't be COS DES II, since it was Hadrian who arranged my designation to a second consulship, and your condemnation of him would invalidate his acts."
However, recording consular designations on coins was often a matter of choice. It was perfectly correct to call an emperor COS on the coins right up to the day he became COS II, even though he had been designated to that second consulship months before.
Consider Antoninus' next consulship, when he became COS III on 1 Jan. 140, while Marcus Caesar became COS on the same day. Marcus, on the rev. of coins of Antoninus, was called COS DES late in 139, but there are no coins at all calling Antoninus COS DES III. Obviously, the mint considered it unimportant to record his consular designation, and merely called him COS II right up until 1 Jan. 140 when he became COS III.
I am therefore not convinced that the omission of DES II on Antoninus' early coins as Augustus was meant to announce, "I am no longer COS DES II." It might just be the casual omission of an unimportant title, which was then just as casually reintroduced a couple of weeks later.

Diederik · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2005, 11:53:06 am »

Thank you Curtis!
Most enlightening! I will try and make a new chronological scheme for the coins of 138. I still have not been able to tackle Strack, so there will be a few omissions in my lists. I'll send them to you personally once done.
In a next thread I'll post a nice sestertius I just bought!

Frans

Rupert · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2006, 01:46:59 pm »

Hello Frans!

I read this thread with great interest and was rather pleased to find a similar specimen for sale in Ebay. Two minutes before the auction ended, and while I was just about to buy it, I decided to read this thread once more, and it struck me that these two coins (yours and the one on Ebay) are virtually identical, even the flan shape and cracks. Since I believe the seller is not you because you are probably not going to sell your specimen, I am afraid this is a bad sign.

Rupert

Diederik · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2006, 04:03:12 pm »

Just the original dealer's obverse pic.
You roused my suspicion correctly, I fear...
Ich melde mich...

Frans

Diederik · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2006, 04:27:34 pm »

Apparently the pics are not identical, but the coins certainly are! I immediately checked the edge of the coin, and, indeed, a small fissure can be seen in places and there are traces of filing

If you remember the name of the seller, could you privately mail it to me, just to see where the source may lie. By the looks of the background, I think it is the same one!
You didn't make my day Rupert, but I certainly learned something today!
The coin can be added to the fakes gallery!

Frans

curtislclay · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2006, 04:57:24 pm »

Too bad! Are the sellers of these two casts known to be unreliable?
The dies, of course, are genuine. I have in my own collection an authentic specimen from the same dies, coming from the huge Yugoslavian hoard that came onto the market about five years ago.
In over twenty years of collecting up to 1989, when I sold my pre-193 coins including my specialty collection of Antoninus in 138-9 to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, I was unable to acquire a single coin with obv. legend IMP ANTONINVS AVG.
After that my luck changed and I was able to acquire both published variants of the sestertius, plus all three of the published denarii and, I think, one unpublished denarius. Probably there are more unpublished types still to turn up!

Diederik · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2006, 05:39:36 pm »

picture of the edge:
The American seller is rather new: 116 feedbacks, lots of artefacts and some dubious coins beside some good ones.

I'll wait until the buyer Rupert glanced at, gives his feedback and then I will be able to confront the seller with two identical coins - perhaps he is better than his coins....

Frans

Diederik · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2006, 06:05:05 pm »

They are now offering a THIRD specimen!!!!

[BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

I don't know if the moderators are happy with this, but I am FURIOUS!!

The cheek!

Frans

postvmvs · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2006, 06:46:02 pm »

A quick look through their past auctions turned up 2 more instances of selling the identical coin (or to be more precise, cast fakes originating from the same coin).

[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

I imagine that all the coins they are selling are high quality cast fakes

.

postvmvs · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2006, 06:58:33 pm »

More:

[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

Another thing I noticed is that their current auctions list their location as "Granada Hills, California", while older auctions list it as "Kehl, Germany; Los Angeles CA" or "Los Angelis[sic], CA; Germany".

postvmvs · « **Reply #15 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:12:26 pm »

A triplet:

[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

The 'obsolete' and 'spes-pvblica' were already noticed by beachcomber on the German forum, and I stumbled upon the empire_gallery example.

EDIT: A fourth one:

[BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN] (seller:sashav7)

slokind · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:04:45 pm »

Could these be, for the obverse, off-casts of the Lipanoff Julia Paula, Prokopov 2004, p. 60, or in some other process fakes of fakes? No, the letter forms are different. Some factory seems to be trying to keep business going? Not nice, though.
Pat L.

Diederik · « **Reply #17 on:** January 05, 2006, 09:06:22 am »

Shame when you realise how many coins have been sold in the meantime: indeed Patricia, this is a factory where agreat many coins must have been made. We have only discovered the tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid.
More importantly: what can be done to stop them? Inform Ebay? If they are barred, they will return under a different name in no time...
Who knows what best can be done?

Frans

postvmvs · « **Reply #18 on:** January 05, 2006, 10:20:17 pm »

Let's summarize what's been learned so far!

The Back Story
One day Frans bought an interesting denarius of Antoninus Pius¹, or so he thought. Frans posts his find the Forvm boards. Later avid Forvm member Rupert stumbles upon another example², what luck. But it wasn't luck, for you see, the coin Rupert found was identical (die, flan, flaws, everything!). That sick feeling in the pit of the stomach strikes -- CAST FAKES! And then the coup-de-grace, Frans finds the dealer who sold him the coin peddling another cast fake³ exactly like his. The nerve! The cheek! The hutzpeh!

The Evidence
The most damning evidence is selling identical copies of the same coin (see my above posts and pics). Close inspection of other coins offered by the sellers also show some signs of casting (surfaces not smooth, fine details weak, occasional fine pitting/bubbles). Although cast, these are better than a lot of the cast coins that appear for sale on eBay and IMO they are very dangerous for the average collector! One need only look at the feedback of the sellers to get an idea of how many people were caught by these.

The Location(s)
It seems that 'empire_gallery' is shipping his coins from Kehl, Germany (located near the French border, across from Strasbourg). The seller 'spes-pvblica' lists his location as Karlsruhe, which happens to be the closest large city in Germany to Kehl. Since both are selling the same cast fakes m.aurel from spes-pvblica m.aurel from empire_gallery[/url], it isreasonable to suggest that they may be the same individual/group or at the least use the same source for their cast fakes.

What's next?
I wish I knew! From what I've gathered absorbing various tales of eBay impropriety, eBay cares/reacts more for people that actually were involved in a transaction (i.e. the person ripped-off) vs. uninvolved bystander. So, people unfortunate enough to have bought one or more of these fakes should definitely complain to eBay. There are probably dozens if hundreds of potentially unhappy customers out there, most blissfully unaware anything is wrong.

These cast fakes have been (and are being!) ably spread to the four winds by crooked eBay sellers. I imagine these 'coins' will continue to appear as genuine as the buyers sell them or have their collection sold off (ashes to ashes, dust to dust).

Post scriptum
The 'artifacts' offered by the above mentioned sellers are probably also fakes (Who would sell fake coins, but real antiquities?).

Hopefully I have not 'named too many names', but I feel that in cases of outright fraud such as this, it should be handled similar to the "Toronto Group" and their kind. The more light the better.

I have to agree with Frans, this is just the tip of the iceberg!

[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

Rupert · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2006, 05:58:58 pm »

Thank you for your excellent summary! One more thing to add is that a third Ebay seller, "obsolete" by name, seems to sell the same kind of fakes.

What does this teach us? It teaches us how ESSENTIAL our cooperation on this board is. Neither Frans nor I might ever have suspected that we had fallen for fakes if our complementary observations had not led us to this stringent conclusion. The more of us there are, watching and sharing our observations, the harder it will be for the forgers to fool us. As we see from these coins, they're doing dangerously good jobs. Sometimes at least.

Rupert

postvmvs · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2006, 03:52:20 pm »

Looking through the fake reports I found an entry showing three cast examples of Roman Republican denarius with distinctive damage. And an identical cast fake is being offered by 'empire_gallery' on eBay. Does anyone remember/know of the sellers of the three coins in the Fakes Report?

(EDIT: I found the original thread here)

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-1142

The description from Fake Reports:

Quote

These three "coins" were offered by different eBay sellers all within weeks of eachother. They are not all the same coin (on of our members bought one of them). The only possible explanation is cast copies.

Rupert · « **Reply #21 on:** January 14, 2006, 05:57:12 pm »

The same denarius with the same flaw was sold in a lot with other denarii by "bellarts2004" from whom I'm afraid I 've already bought a fake coin too

.

[BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

It would be interesting to know now whether the other mid-grade denarii in this lot are all false too.

Rupert

Rupert · « **Reply #22 on:** January 14, 2006, 06:32:50 pm »

And just look who's back again (seller spes-pvblica again this time):

[BROKEN LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN]

Rupert

Diederik · « **Reply #23 on:** January 14, 2006, 06:57:18 pm »

It's absolutely unbelievable! I mailed them and told them to get lost!!

Frans

Diederik · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2006, 09:45:07 am »

This is their answer:Reactie van spes-pvblica
Object: K22*Antoninus Pius AR denarius*FIDES*TRIBPOT COS DES II (8372239251)

spes-pvblica is the seller.

Guten Tag!Sie irren sich.Die Stücke die ich anbiete,werden vom Handel in Deutschland gekauft und Auktionen.Sie haben schon was von mir gekauft.Ist das auch fake?Wenn Sie mit die gekaufte Ware nicht zufrieden sind,bitte melden Sie sich und Sie bekommen Ihr Geld ,egal wann Sie es erworben haben jederzeit,sofort zurück.Bitte melden Sie sich.Danke + Gruß

Ga naar Mijn berichten om op deze vraag te reageren.
Nu reageren

   Objectgegevens
Objecttitel:    K22*Antoninus Pius AR denarius*FIDES*TRIBPOT COS DES II
Objectnummer:    8372239251
Einddatum:    15-jan-06 20:05:14 CET
Objectbeschrijving bekijken:

[BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]

News:

Author Topic: out of place series of Antoninus (Read 29107 times)

Cibalia