FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Roman Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Lech Stępniewski on May 12, 2022, 02:19:25 pm
-
A question for those who have good eyes.
-
Yes, they appear to be.
I noted the 2nd coin with interest when it sold .. seems like it may be a mule, given that the reverse type dates to c.324 at all mints, whereas the long haired draped bust is probably 330AD or later.
-
seems like it may be a mule, given that the reverse type dates to c.324 at all mints, whereas the long haired draped bust is probably 330AD or later.
This bust type was introduced in Thessalonica in 326-328 (legend in 328), so maybe SMTSA issue was still treated at that time as "in progress". It is hard to believe that workers found the old reverse die and used it without permission of authorities. Quite the opposite, it is reasonable to assume that the gold emissions were minted with an extra care.
-
IMHO the obverse is very similar but not a die-match.
DT
-
Dominic, The obverse? ???
-
Clearly typo for reverse!
I agree with Heliodromus that the rev. die is the same.
-
Here's the Thessalonica issues and bust progression. RIC and Depeyrot agree on the issue sequence and dates.
According to this sequencing, after RIC 131 we've got an intervening issue (SMTS), bust type (jewelled diadem), and change of reverse type, before the draped bust introduction about 6 years later.
To me the bust style of the coin in question doesn't really look like these 1st draped diademed Thessalonican busts (e.g. RIC 174 example), or even much like any Thessalonica bust I've seen for that matter! The engraver may have come from another mint.
Anyways, it seems anomalous to me. YMMV.
Edit: Updated graphic with a different RIC 131 specimen that better shows bust style continuity. Originally included specimen was from suspect die.
-
The engraver may have come from another mint.
Interesting hypothesis! Maybe he traveled with Constantine (which was in Thessalonica in 327 and then in 330) because there was sometimes an unexpected occasion to give some donativa. So in an emergency, that old reverse die has been accepted.
-
Dominic, The obverse? ???
I was testing the group’s sense of humor. Not very present here…
DT
-
I was being sarcastic as well. :angel:
-
WE are not amused.
-
Interesting hypothesis!
The two observations "seems like a mule" and "[bust] engraver may have come from another mint" aren't necessarily related, so no hypothesis intended!
-
Dear Board,
On the contrary, I find this all rather amusing. Dominic was trying to be upfront with his humor while Jay was trying to go about it in reverse.*
*Note: No coinage dies were harmed during the course of making these "cracks."
Best regards,
Mark Fox
Michigan
P.S.: On a more serious note, yes, both reverse dies look identical to me, too, although they are in clearly different die sates. This has left me wondering...isn't the "earlier' use of the die in a more worn state than its "later" use? There are many areas for comparison, but consider, in particular, the die crack stretching from the last 'S' in "CONSTANTINVS."
-
the die crack stretching from the last 'S' in "CONSTANTINVS."
I'd interpret that as a flow line rather than die crack, but I'm no expert in this type of forensics!
-
so no hypothesis intended!
So what would be the most plausible hypothesis in your opinion? I don't want to suggest anything, however, one of my thoughts was: OMG, could it be another transfer dies forgery...
-
All potential explanations seem problematic, but unless more turn up I'd go with mule (maybe obsolete rev die wasn't where it was meant to be?)
-
I was thinking same thing... Possible transfer die fake.
-
Possible transfer die fake.
Yes, these stories (which I also like) about discovered old die or an engraver traveling with Constantine are fascinating - as stories. But this coin should not exist. So now I think the simplest explanation must be considered in the first place, i.e. that this coin is a modern forgery. I wrote PM to Din X and I am curious about his opinion.
-
Well, there's definitely some fakes have been produced from this reverse die.
Following coins can all be found searching for "Thessalonica 131" on AC Search.
First, here's two, double die match, showing die in an early state.
-
Now we have coin from top post. Compare victory's below-waist drapery compared to above specimens - clearly doesn't match and has been tooled.
-
Saving the best (worst) for last, these two (double die linked, and to above coin as well) are either fake or at best show die in an advanced state of wear. Note same damage to the shield and exergual line below it.
-
Then finally we have the "mule" under discussion, put here for easy comparison, which does not share above damage.
So on that basis (not latest die state) this one seems fake, and maybe the three above it as well.
I guess it's conceivable that only the above two are fake and don't reflect actual end condition of reverse die in 324 AD, but that seems less likely.
-
So on that basis (not latest die state) this one seems fake, and maybe the three above it as well.
Could you be more specific, Ben, because now I am a little bit confused. So which one of these five THESSALONICA 131 coins is another fake? All five? The first two? The first three? The last two? The last three? Maybe give them numbers. Do you think that the reverse die of the third (tooled) coin is a tooled reverse of the coin in question?
-
And now it is time to search for the prototype (die) of the obverse of this "mule" Constantine.
My first guess (diadem, hair) is Constantinople. Something like that
(https://www.acsearch.info/media/images/archive/93/8988/9259652.m.jpg)
But I may be wrong.
-
The more I look at them, the more I don't like any of them.
C & D are identical down to flow lines and shield/exergual line damage. I think these are definitely fake.
E is tooled and double die linked to C & D, but obv/rev dies both in earlier state.
For F to be ancient (dating to 330 AD+) it would have to have rev die in most worn state from 324 AD usage, but certainly doesn't have damage of C & D.
Another factor here is the bust style. We'd expect some variation between officinas, but busts A/B and C/D/E are notably different from the rest, including an officina E specimen.
If I had to guess I'd say:
C-F all fake
A-B maybe fake
Obv dies A/B and C/D/E perhaps modern ?
-
Bust style by officina.
-
And now it is time to search for the prototype (die) of the obverse of this "mule" Constantine.
My first guess (diadem, hair) is Constantinople. Something like that
Yes, my guess is Nicomedia or Constantinople, not Thessalonica.
-
Thanks, Ben. Now it is definitely more clear.
I agree with the most comments you have written. However, your conclusion ("I don't like any of them") is depressing. And it is more depressing because now it is also my feeling. Are we biased?
The different bust style is the minor problem. There could be two engravers in officina epsilon.
I think I see on the reverse of A something which Din calls "ghost lines" (one of signs of transfer die)
Below is for comparison example of THESSALONICA 131 off. epsilon cited in RIC (Hirsch XXXIV). Unfortunately picture (and scan?) is not great.
-
The different bust style is the minor problem. There could be two engravers in officina epsilon.
Yes, and I'm less sure about the A/B bust - looks odd compared to the rest (and unusual fat diadem ties), but more convincing than C/D/E.
Edit: I see that Hirsch obv (no reason to doubt it) has the fat diadem ties too, although A/B could just be trying to copy that.
Edit: It's actually a double die link to the better preserved specimen from AC Search.
-
It seems like ther exist transfer die fakes related to this reverse die which are actually not connected.
This 2 are not connected to the other ones.
One is the authentic mother and the other one a transfer die fake.
The mother has sharper details and has details that are missing on the transfer die fake.
The transfer die fake has softer details and no new details from ancient matrix, all details can be already found on authentic mother.
Individual characteristic from circulation scratches have been copied from authentic mother into transfer dies and on fakes, such characteristics from circulation can not be found indentical on 2 coins from the same issue.
-
To the hybrid I have saved it in my fake folder when I saw it at auction without knowing the authentic mothers for obverse and reverse.
If we find coins from the same obverse and reverse there is a realistic chance to find the authentic mothers, but sadly no coin posted here is the authentic mohter of the hybrid transfer die fake.
E is authentic and struck and has very sharp and convincing details and no problems typical for transfer die fakes.
D is authentic and struck and has very sharp and convincing details and no problems typical for transfer die fakes.
E is missing details present on Hybrid transfer die, like parts of dotted border and die wear has removed sharpness of letters like N S T, so it can not be the mother of Hybrid
D is missing details present on Hybrid transfer die, like parts of dotted border, details removed due to scratches and die wear has removed sharpness of letters like N S T, so it can not be the mother of Hybrid
C is transfer die fake of D and is missing details present on Hybrid transfer die, like parts of dotted border, details removed due to scratches and die wear has removed sharpness of letters like N S T, so it can not be the mother of Hybrid
The A+B reverse is from different dies than a+B+C+D+E+F so no die matches and not related.
If A+B are transfer die fakes or not is hard to say from pictures, better pictures and/ or die study should help.
I think this thread can be confusing we have a hybrid transfer die fake F and other authentic D+E and fake coin C which are only realted because they are form the same reverse die.
And some coins from differnent reverse and obverse die A+B which should possibly be checked carefully,
-
The "mule" obverse is from Constantinople, used with RIC 90.
I havn't yet been able to find this die in the trade, but here are specimens from the A.N.S. and British Museum.
-
Thanks Din for your analysis. I have to rethink it with more care.
I havn't yet been able to find this die in the trade, but here are specimens from the A.N.S. and British Museum.
Possibly BM die is the mother. The ANS die is different: check the left arm or the position of "S" in CONSTANTINE.
-
Thanks, Din.
The only part I disagree with is whether D is authentic. It seems to me it's copied from E.
1) All the flow lines, in exact detail as far as I can see, are the same on D as on E.
2) The regions of missing beaded edge on D seem to correspond t those of E.
3) If you compare the circled red area on E vs B, you can see that E has been tooled. In particular the most central loop of drapery is much narrower on E than B. Now, compare D vs E and you can see that D appears to have the same narrow loop of drapery that only appeared via tooling on E.
I can't explain the forensics, but I suspect that E may be fake too, and has a common mother with F. Otherwise, if assume that D is authentic (despite points 1-3), and unrelated to F, then we have a strange situation where transfer dies were made from D to produce C, and by sheer coincidence a 2nd transfer die was also made from a different coin from the exact same reverse die to produce F !
Do you have any idea how transfer dies are typically used to produce coins - by striking or by press? Would coins made via press have their own flow lines, or maybe just copy any flow lines present on a transfer die being used?
-
Possibly BM die is the mother. The ANS die is different
Yes - you're right. The alignment between the top diadem tie terminal and the "S" are also different on the ANS coin.
-
I think it can differ from workshop to workshop if they strike or press with their dies.
There should not be any new flow lines on transfer die fakes except for the flow lines which were already in the transfer dies.
We have to consider that ancient coins were generally struck on heated planchets and that they needed depending on relief and size sometimes 2 or more strikes and that the strikes where not perfectly vertical with hammer to the middle of the matrix.
For pressed fakes you generally do not need to heat planchet and you only need to add as much pressure to capture all details and pressure will be perfectly vertical.
Interesting are this mounts for matrixes, if you use them, there sould not be any slippage (if you mint with on blow) and the pressure should be almost perfect vertical although you strike with a hammer.
On top you hit a steel block that will hit the matrix.
I think the result is different than holding the top (reverse die) in hand while hitting it with hammer, becasue you would then have to hold the top die perfectly positioned and stable while minting and not moving die if you need 2 blows with hammer.
https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/1179930129/benutzerdefinierte-druckform-fur-munzen?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=M%C3%BCnzpr%C3%A4geset&ref=sr_gallery-4-37&frs=1&sts=1&organic_search_click=1
https://www.etsy.com/de/listing/775153604/benutzerdefiniertes-munzprageset?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=own+coin&ref=sr_gallery-1-39&cns=1&sts=1&organic_search_click=1
https://www.facebook.com/Antiquanovamint/
-
Maybe my eyes are too tired but I still believe that this reverses are from the same die. The first lacks some details but there are also details "improved" by tooling. However, the main reason of my believe is the identical arrangement of letters (although some letters probably also have been corrected).
-
Maybe my eyes are too tired but I still believe that this reverses are from the same die
I've been staring at them too. There are so many points of alignment, then a few difference that seem they could be accounted for by the die being reworked.
In particular, the coin on the right, if based on same die as coin on left, has had the lap portion of the drapery reworked - the same area that has weakness on the other coins. In the process the bottom tip of the cornucopia has disappeared, as has victory's hand that is holding it. There's also something weird going on with the exergual line.
-
Here's a quick video I made showing alignment of dies A and F.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQygGaxdfqs
-
Thanks, Ben. As I already said: "Man of many talents".
So probably all these six reverses are from the same die. And perhaps few of them were slightly corrected, reworked etc. Am I right? And what are your thoughts now?
-
I just did another comparison using different colors to make it clearer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SREaEvN8R4E
They are extraordinarily close, except for some potential drapery rework, although I'm not sure letters of left and right halves of coin can be made to align at same time. It's hard to tell how much of this is down to coin photography or differing strikes as opposed to actual die differences.
The "mule" F appears double struck which may be affecting things too.
I'm not sure if these are same die, one in a reworked state, or not.
-
I'm not sure if these are same die, one in a reworked state, or not.
It is hard to be sure when working only with pictures made over many years by different photographers etc. So let's talk only about probability.
There are of course slight differences between all this reverses but for me it is extremely improbable that we have here two or more dies. Some differences can be explained by different angle when taking the pictures. Some by reworking or tooling.
-
In my opinion, both the BMC and ANS coins have much better details in the hair and diadems under magnification than the OP's coin. Yet the OP's obverse has more and smoother detail in the face.
I'm thinking the obverse of the OPs coin is a transfer die where the face has been touched up, but the hair was neglected.
-
I'm not sure we're going to get any more progress on this at the moment, so thought I'd leave this here as a summary of the discussion so far.
Coins F and C are obviously slam-dunk take-it-to-the-bank transfer die fakes. To me, D is also highly suspect due to similarity to E, and maybe E too.
The links to F show the dies used, not necessarily the specific host coins from which the transfer dies were created.
-
I generally agree. F - 100% fake, C - 95% fake, D - 75% fake, E - 50%/50% but probably tooled fake (of course take these numbers cum grano salis).
-
Give. The large difference of years between the dies, I can't see how E is not a fake, more so because it shares dies with known fakes. Just my $.02 worth.
-
It is completetly impossible that E + D + F are from same transfer dies.
Becasue each of them has details which are missing on the other 2 of them.
One giveway of transfer die fakes is generally that they have no new which are not already present on the mother and details missing ont he mother will be so missing on them too except details are recut (but it is impossible to perfectly recut details so this new details will be different than in the ancient dies and so different as on authentic coins).
If I make out of E + D a transfer die and recut there the letters that they are so sharp and fresh this transfer die can be only used for F, because E+D have worn letters (flow lines eroded in the dies).
If you use D to make a transfer die and recut many details perfectly to produce E, then this transfer die will have like D+E worn letters and can not be used to strike F, this letters can not be recut later in dies, such details must be modified in silicon rubber (rubbre will be made later with graphit electric conductive to procude die with electroplating).
If you use E to make a transfer die and recut many details perfectly to produce E, then this transfer die will have like D+E worn letters and can not be used to strike F, this letters can not be recut later in dies, such details must be modified in silicon rubber (rubbre will be made later with graphit electric conductive to procude die with electroplating).
Why can this letters can not be recut later in dies?
It is easy, die wear means the die is losing metal due to erosion from metal flow and there is possibly some abrasion/rubbing from striking between planchet and matrixes even if the planchet is heated.
If you want to remove die wear you would have to add melted metal and then you would have to recut details.
And adding meltel metal is not always good the high temperature and later cooling can cause problems (tension) to the dies if there are already die breaks the can become stronger and even the die can break.
Cutting details in dies means that you will remove metal!
It is of course possible to recut the letters without adding metal, but this recutting would result in much huger letters becasue this letters must be huge enough to cover the flow lines (die wear).
F is from an earlier die state, no die wear see the completely fresh letter, E+D are from later die state see the die wear on letter (metal flow near letter is called flow lines and this metal flow will erode with time in the dies)
E has details missing on D + F.
D has missing Detatils missing on E + F
F has details missing on E + D
F has completely fresh letters meaning the dies must have been very fresh when this coin was struck.
Of course Details like letters can be recut in treansfer dies.
It has parts of dotted border missing on D (10-11 o´clock) + details that are missing on E due to this scuff (shield, wing + C + groundline)
IF F is supposed to be the mother of D + E then the letters must have been worn down artificially in transfer dies not sure if it is possible and many details must have been recut in transfer dies which are missing or on F and that are present or sharper on E + D
If E or D is supposed to be the mother F there must have been massive recutting of details.
E + D are from the same late die state which can be easily recoginzed if you compare the die wear of the letters which is identical so same die state.
The die wear is actually here metal flow (flow lines), which eroded in the dies with time and so this flow lines are indentical on coins from same die state.
IF E is supposed to be the mother of D then in the transfer dies the dotted border from (10-11 o´clock) must have been recut.
Because this dotted border is present/visible on D the suppose transfer die fake but not the mother E so it must have beenr recut.
If a part of the dotted border is recut, then we would have to ask why there other parts of dotted border were not recut.
To recut dooted border perfectly is pretty much impossible so if dotted border on D is idnetical as on authentic coins it can not be recut and is so authentic.
The dotted border does not look recut but a die study would help to reconstruct which details were in the ancient dies at which die state and which details present on transfer die fakes are individual characteristics (from striking, wear and environment) from the mother and should not be found indentical on another coin from the same dies.
If D is supposed to be the mother of E then the details missing due to wear and scuffs must have been recut and dots of dotted border.
And as we know perfect recutting is pretty much impossible and if the details like hair, dotted border, shield, wing + C + groundline are indentical as on authentic coins (same die state) then this details can not be recut.
-
It is much MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult to produce good recut transfer dies than you can imagine.
In theory it might sound easy but in practice you will notice how difficult it can be and how many problems will occure that you did not expect and that you can not solve all of them and if you try to solve them new ones will occure and os many things can go wrong.
You would need a die study to know which details where in the dies at which die state and then you would have to recut all details correct, impossible.
You will have to remove individual characteristics from striking, wear and environment of the mother because this details were not in the ancient dies and sould not be found identical on other coins from the same dies.
If you produce the transfer dies by casting or electroplating you will have softer details and transfer errors, this softer details and transfer errors must be then recut.
-
Hi Din,
there is a lot of things to rethink after your post but I notice that you focused on re-cutting the dies. But what about situation when there is only one die and few differently tooled coins from this die. For example, it seems to me probable that E was heavy tooled. I mean really heavy. So only the arrangement of letters and few parts of design are similar (and at the same time there could be also few differences). In such case wears on die are not especially important.
Some wears and scratches could be even added to coin after minting (pressing) to make it looks slightly different. It is obvious that gold coins are forged with more care, more "individually", because the output is rather limited. Also buyers are usually smarter, they compare one specimen to others etc.
-
The auctions are still full with these Beirut transfer die forgeries of Solidii and they are not recut but still accepted by really many auction houses and dealers as authentic although they have been condemned in bulletin on counterfeits many years ago.
And some Bulgarian transfer die fakes which were not recut found their way into auctions see for example the fake Julian Ii solidii where the copper encruatrations of the mother were transferred into the transfer dies. I have lead strikes of many of these Bulgarian transfer die and they are not recut.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pid=19369
The Sicilian transfer dies for Solidii are generally not recut or only the dotted border is very wrong recut.
There are really many many transfer dies fakes even of gold coins in auctions as authentic with ghost lines and without recutting and they are accepted as authentic some will be withdrawn later but most will be sold.
I think transfe die fake c + F are good examples because they are not recut and there is no reason to do the really really difficult and time consuming (die study) recut because there are enough dealers and auction houses who will accept them as authentic.
I sometimes think forgers have bets who can make the worst and most obvious fake that will still be accepted by some auction houses and dealers as authentic and it seems like forgers have failsd because no matter how crappy and obvious their fakes are they will still find auction houses and dealers who will accept them as authentic.
Recut transfer die fakes are very very rare!
Perfect recut transfer die fakes do not exist.
There is no need to do recutting if you can sell them without recutting easily.
-
Din,
Let's focus on coins C-F for now. The discussion of a potentially reworked die (and my die comparison video above) was about the A-B vs C-F dies.
Here are three considerations that make me think D & E may be from the same transfer die.
1) The flow lines appear to be identical. Is that more likely to occur because:
a) These flow lines are present on a transfer die, transmitted to the coins via pressed production, or
b) There are no flow lines on the die, and despite the variation of hand striking they happened to just come out the same ?
2) The missing regions of pearl border appear the same on both coins.
3)
a) All of C-E are derived from the same (obv, rev) die pair, and this rev die was also used to produce the known fake F.
b) A, B are both from the same (but different from C-E) die pair
c) The Hirsch coin, and the more recent sale, shown above, are again from the same pair of dies, different again from either of the above pairs.
How likely is it that we only ever see these three pairs used together, and not in combination (say, Hirsch obv with E rev, or E obv with Hirsh rev)? Maybe such pairings exist, but these posted coins were not cherry picked.. they are the only officina E ones I've been able to easily find.
Have we seen the entire population of coins struck from these C-E dies? Seems unlikely. We don't need to micro analyze just these coins and consider which is the mother of the other. Maybe they were all produced from the same dies in various stages of wear, with the shield & exergual like damage on C & D just reflecting the late stage condition of this reverse die, and not that a transfer die was taken directly from D to produce C.
Finally, the style of this C-E obverse die is only similar to that of A-B (which by association seems suspect). The bust styles from all officinas, as well as the HIrsch officina E die, are much more homogenous and normal looking, as well as providing style continuity into the following jewelled-diadem bust type (see my post near top of this thread). The C-E obverse die (and, to an only slightly lesser extent, also the A-B obverse die) is a stylistic outlier, and possibly modern.
-
"1) The flow lines appear to be identical. Is that more likely to occur because:"
It is normal that the flow lines are identical on coins from the same die state because it must be like this, the flow lines are from metal flow and will erode with usage time into the dies !
Look at authentic coins from same dies and from about the same die state and you will notice that they have pretty much identical flow lines.
Search of authentic coins, from excavations, museum collections and if they were minted at same die state they will have pretty much identical flow lines because these flow lines already eroded from usage in the dies.
We have flow lines :
1. that eroded with usage time into the dies and they should be present on all coins minted with these dies at this or a later die state.
2. possible but very unlikely some new flow lines from the minting process (most likely very weak and very hard to see)
-
Yes, I understand that metal will flow where there is pressure build up and channels for it to flow ... a function of die state, but if you believe D & E are both genuine then we're talking about hand struck coins, and I'd have thought any difference in pressure distribution due to any strike difference would also have an effect on flow lines (e.g. on opposite side of coin if strike pressure was lopsided).
I also think we need to look at the totality of the evidence if we're assessing probability of fake as far as D & E go. How do you explain the same missing regions of pearl border on both coins? Are you not concerned about the three die pairs with no cross-pair usage? Are you not concerned about the stylistic bust differences?
It's one thing if a single piece of evidence is, by itself, 100% proof of something (e.g. coin F's use of dies from two different mints!), but if we're only talking probabilities then you have to combine them. It's a bit like the 50% odds of a head if you toss a coin once vs the odds of tossing 3 or 4 heads in a row.
It would be interesting to see some more officina E coins, if any can be found, to see if that changes or reinforces anything.
-
It would be interesting to see some more officina E coins, if any can be found, to see if that changes or reinforces anything.
Few more. Kunker 174 = Hess Divo 314 but different picture can be useful.
-
Thanks, Lech.
So, we have an additional die pair there from Tauler & Fau, and additional examples of two other pairs. At least, I think these Triton and Kunker specimens are same obv die (minimally same engraver) despite these noted differences. I'm not sure what's going on at the back of the head or the ear (can't imagine it being engraved like that) of the Triton coin; the nose difference is the only thing that makes me question if they are same or not.
-
So here's all the die pairings that we've recorded so far.
It's notable that none of the reverse dies are used with more than a single obverse, and obverse die O1 is only one to be paired with two reverse dies (R1 & R2).
None of the O3 or O4 specimens (all from major auction houses) were sold with any provenance.
The last two O2 specimens (one appearing to be a fake copy of the other) are both provenanced to different sales in 1985. The first O2 specimen, with better preserved hair, was sold without provenance.
I've got to say that if I was in the market for one of these, I'd be looking for a specimen using obverse O1 ...
-
from Tauler & Fau,
Which seems somehow weird to me. Too smooth, too clean...
I think these Triton and Kunker specimens are same obv die (minimally same engraver)
Probably the same obverse die but these small differences are annoying, e.g. on Kunker specimen the wreat-tie seems to be a little bit closer to the neck. But it could be only the optical effect because of different angle, different light nd so on.
-
Excellent analysis. Thanks, Ben.
I've got to say that if I was in the market for one of these, I'd be looking for a specimen using obverse O1 ...
Yes, it is definitely the safest choice.
-
Here's another of these currently up for auction, coin # 1 below.
Obv die is different from the ones already posted, but reverse die is same as the transfer-die mule, coin # 2.
Obv die is also remarkably similar to this highly suspect coin recently offered for sale, coin # 3.
-
Obv die is also remarkably similar to this highly suspect coin recently offered for sale, coin # 3.
Somehow similar but not identical. I would rather say that #3 (looks bad) is imitating #1 (looks quite good for me)
-
Yes, not identical, but shouldn't even be close - it's meant to be Crispus from Nicomedia, not Constantine from Thessalonica.
To me it suggests a common source.
So, new coin has obverse v. close to apparently fake Crispus, and reverse die link to known transfer die fake.
-
and reverse die link to known transfer die fake.
What about possibility that this is "mother die" from which fake die was made?
-
Maybe? Beaded edge certainly better than any of the others from this die, but no sign of edge from 2-3 o'clock copied to others. This type of forensics is not something I'm any good at though!
Anyways, it's another data point that belongs here with the others.