Fake Agathocles gold

[xintaris75]

with link at FORVM in description: [BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]
Joe, what you think about this?

[commodus]

Please always post photos!!! ebay links will go dead shortly.
Here are images of the coin in question.

[rover1.3]

Xintaris gave the link, because this dealer refers to Forum on his item description. He didn't ask about the authenticity or not of the coin,
this is pretty obvious fake.

[commodus]

Xintaris gave the ling,because this dealer refers to Forum on his item description.

Thanks, Rover, I understood that. However, links are not enough to post alone. Photos should always be posted as well as the links go dead after while. By posting the photos one can see the coin in question even after the ebay link is dead.

[Gabe]

The seller quite angrily denies it's fake and says he cannot see any difference between this coin and

http://coincircuit.com/Pages/ViewImage.php?item=6146500

http://books.google.es/books?id=TlnoMdZu40UC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=AGATHOKLES+80+litra&source=bl&ots=Nttp-rqGZc&sig=8rQfw0m9avewlb8w5AhleS2nW4g&hl=es&ei=r-n-S4qCIcSj_Qa54IW3Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=AGATHOKLES%2080%20litra&f=false

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/zoompgsold.asp?param=10964q00.jpg&vpar=68&zpg=8609&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/

Care to point out what is so obvious to you, Rover?

[commodus]

I'd be most interested to know why this is an obvious fake. I am not making a judgment one way or the other on its authenticity. Two members here have declared it fake, but neither has stated why. It does not appear to be cast, the weight is right, actually leaning to then heavier side of the correct range, and I can find no matches to it here on the fake reports or on Forgery Network. If the style is off I can't see where or how. Maybe the lettering? The final sigma in the upper line on the reverse does look a bit odd.
I am just asking because I'd like to know what others are seeing here that they are certain it is a fake. It may indeed be a fake, but I'd like to know the reasons for declaring it such as it is not obvious to me from these images; what are the others seeing that I'm missing? From the look of it, I'd be inclined to think it genuine, but then Greek gold is not really my area of focus. Perhaps in hand it would be clear one way or the other, but from the photos it is certainly not, at least to my eyes.

[xintaris75]

There are soft details, low relief and cutted edge at 4 o clock. It' cast.

[commodus]

I am not sure what you mean by "cutted edge." I see nothing unusual at 4 o'clock on either the obverse or reverse.

[xintaris75]

I mean this:

[Robert_Brenchley]

That could be the scar left after the removal of a casting sprue.

[Howard Cole]

From the other two examples I could find on the Internet, I have to agree that this coin is most likely a cast.  The letters in the inscription are missing parts that would not normally be gone on a gold coin if struck.

[Gabe]

I really do find the two arguments that were provided (slight flatness on the edge at 3 o'clock and less pronounced inscriptions at the periphery) a bit difficult   

Both are present at http://www.magnagraecia.nl/coins/Area_IV_map/Syracusa_map/descrSyrBasel513.html

and on a number of specimens at http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=syracuse+athena+thunderbolt+av, especially when you take into account that the coins at this link are in a better state of preservation.

[mihali84]

Speaking only about the flat edge at 4 o'clock, it looks like the sort of thing that would happen if one dropped the coin on a hard surface.  A couple of my AR Tetradrachms have this and one was caused by me dropping the coin on hard tile, sadly enough, but it's better than a flat edge on the portrait or reverse detail. 

[Dino]

I agree.  You can see it on the edge shot as well.  It's fairly small.

I don't really think this looks cast.

Having said that, this seller doesn't seem to specialize in ancients, has a few negatives, including one where he allegedly sold an item he didn't have, he reacts fairly harshly to negatives, and he has numerous private sales.

THose are all things that, personally speaking, would lead me to find a coin elsewhere.

[commodus]

The evidence presented above is not sufficient to condemn the coin, in my opinion. It is, however, enough to make me wary were I a potential buyer, which I am not.

[^]

Fabric is cast, no striking "bloom" in protected areas for a seemingly high grade coin.  Too many surface "pokes", regular scratches &  not enough random contact marks = poor artificial aging/wear.   Also casting softness & low relief.   4:00 typical rim ding not a sign of casting. 

Xintaris75 is correct, modern cast fake.  Other images too low quality for a good fabric comparison.  Ask an expert for further advice/information/explainations.

[commodus]

Fabric is cast, no striking "bloom" in protected areas for a seemingly high grade coin.  Too many surface "pokes", regular scratches &  not enough random contact marks = poor artificial aging/wear.   Also casting softness & low relief.   4:00 typical rim ding not a sign of casting. 

Xintaris75 is correct, modern cast fake.  Other images too low quality for a good fabric comparison.  Ask an expert for further advice/information/explainations.

Again, as I say, it may very well be fake, but from the photos alone it is impossible to condemn it with absolute certainty. The images do not suggest a cast fabric. In hand it would surely be evident whether the coin is fake or genuine and whether it is cast or struck. Based only upon these images, and without any matches among known fakes, there remains a reasonable doubt whether this is fake or genuine.

[Howard Cole]

Where are the loops in the B at the beginning of the bottom inscription?  Where is the rest of the last  in the top inscription?  They do not look worn away, but are completely missing.  I do admit that it could be made by the die getting filled in those parts, but I seriously doubt this is the case for this coin.  I think it was caused by poor casting instead.  But without seeing the coin in hand, I can't really tell.

[Lloyd Taylor]

.... I think it was caused by poor casting instead.  

Agree.  There are lots of problems with the detail (very confused or a lack thereof, some suggestive of transfer errors) on all parts of the design when compared to this authentic one from FORVM to which the eBay vendor directs potential purchasers:


Syracuse, Sicily, Reign of Agathocles, 317 - 289 B.C.
Gold 80 litrae, BMC 416v, SGCV I 970v, SNG Cop 778v (legend blunder is variety for all refs), VF, ex jewelry damage, weight 4.27 g, maximum diameter 15.00 mm, die axis 45o, Syracuse mint, 306 - 289 B.C.; obverse helmeted head of Athena right; reverse ΑΓΑΘΟΚΑΕΟΕ / ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ, winged thunderbolt, TP monogram below, no border; the tyrant's name ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΣ is blundered, reading A instead of Λ and ending in "E" vice the normal"Σ", apparently clipped, holed and filled; SOLD


Look to the botched wings of the fulmen for but one example of the problems in evidence and don't even ask about those stringy plumes hanging from Athena's helmet like stands of very thin spaghetti. For those who need further convincing; how about the free floating disconnected nose guard on the helmet, or the blobby knot in the hair at the back of the neck?  Pick a detail, any detail, and you'll find it problematic in some way shape or form. The old vision impaired celator argument just doesn't cut it with this one as far as I am concerned.

Xintaris gave the link,because this dealer refers to Forum on his item description.He didn't ask about the authenticity or not of the coin,
this is pretty obvious fake.

I think rover1.3 nailed it at the outset.

with link at FORVM in description: [BROKEN LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]
Joe, what you think about this?

The original question was what the principal of FORVM thought about linking FORVM with the said coin in a way that was intended to apparently lend it some credibility, if not to confirm its authenticity.
  
A pretty deceptive practice in my opinion! But it clearly has the potential to backfire with anyone knowledgeable enough and taking a little time to make the comparison. And if the vendor cannot see the differences as attested in part of this thread, then we are apparently dealing with blind vendor syndrome overlaid on vision impaired celator (d)effects!  

[xintaris75]

The original question was what the principal of FORVM thought about linking FORVM with the said coin in a way that was intended to apparently lend it some credibility, if not to confirm its authenticity. 

Yes, there was a point of thread.

Now i hope what a winner of this piece of gold will find this discussion before paying.