Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Hanukkah Sameach!!! Everything on our Hanukkah Gifts page is 10% off!!! Please Call Us If You Have Questions 252-646-1958 Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Merry Christmas!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins!!!

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


Author Topic: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion  (Read 2057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« on: June 09, 2017, 09:58:58 am »
Hi,

I am corresponding with the seller of this coin as I have pointed out to them that it looks like one of the fakes Barry P. Murphy alerted us all to well over a decade ago and are commonly found everywhere. The seller disagrees.

May I please have a second opinion?

Refer:

Barry's original chart: http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg
FORVM article: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/histiaia_001.html
FORVM fake report: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-3775

Peter

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2017, 12:04:46 pm »
I think that Barry P. Murphy has condemned them because of their in his opinion unusual style.

If all appear at the same time at the marked and if their dies are so far unrecorded with unusual style and not die linked to authentic known examples, then they are most likely fake.

I am not sure if any of this suspected coins is die linked to a known and proven authentic coin.

If they are die linked to authentic coins then we have a problem, because that would mean that some of them must be transfer die fakes (host was authentic), then the question will be if these transfer dies were mixed with modern dies or not.

I do not think that the style is that off!

I bought 2 of these by a Bulgarian seller, who maily sells authentic coins, for my fake collection.
Having them in hand I have the problem that they do not look obvious fake and that many dealers and auction houses accept them as authentic.
I put them to side and will decide by myself if authentic or not when I have the necessary literature for die studies (SNG Copenhagen and BCD collection Euboia etc.).






Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2017, 12:26:29 pm »
I believe the reason they were condemned was for precisely that reason: their style was different to any published examples and they came into the market all at the same time. If Barry is around then perhaps he can chime in.

I have SNG Copenhagen. None of them (Nos. 517-536 of Aetolia-Euboea in Volume 3: Greece: Thessaly to Aegean Islands) look remotely similar to this one or the ones in Barry's photos.

By memory, I don't believe any of the ex BCD coins of this type look similar, but I could be wrong.

I also keep noticing them around in both dealer's inventories and on eBay.
I have a few myself which I bought over a decade ago.

I also have two in my personal collection with good provenance and they are both much finer style than the ones referred to above and do not share the same characteristics as the ones noted by Barry.

Peter





Offline shanxi

  • Tribunus Plebis 2018
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2449
    • My gallery

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2017, 03:56:46 am »
Bulgarian fakes are generally from modern bronze, silver and gold.
Modern gold and silver is purer and the alloy can be different with different impurities than ancient gold and silver.

If they are all fake, they should fail metallurgic test!

As if they really melted down ancient coins to pass metallurgic tests, if you consider the huge amount of these fakes out there, then they must have melted many ancient coins ;)

Many of the Bulgarian fake out there are not even real silver (no silver or low silver amount).

The condition/preservation of these fakes vary too (mint state to worn), which is actually good only mint state coins would be suspicious.
The wear on some of them looks convincing (does not look artificial).

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2017, 06:21:18 am »
Hi DinX,

I'm not certain I follow you. Can you please clarify?

Are you saying these have been tested metallurgically at some point and found to contain ancient silver? If that is the case, then that would be compelling evidence in favour of their authenticity. I would agree that melting down authentic coins to make inexpensive fake ones would NOT be economically sound from the perspective of the modern forgers.

We do see different states of wear on faked coins - what do you find different here?  

The ones in my possession vary in grade and all look convincing to my eyes. I agree with you on that. Were it not for the original advice that 1) they came onto the market at the same time and 2) their style was much cruder and not line with existing known specimens (plus none in BCD), then I would not have had reason to suspect them.

Is there not consensus in the numismatic community on whether coins of the type posted originally by Barry are fake? Have I missed something? I thought I was asking for second opinion on whether the coin in the photo above matches the types in Barry's photos. Apologies if this issue was never resolved and the jury is out on their authenticity. I would like to find out for 1) the benefit of the seller I contacted; 2) everyone else given the frequent appearance of coins of this style.

Peter
 

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2017, 08:43:04 am »

"Are you saying these have been tested metallurgically at some point and found to contain ancient silver? If that is the case, then that would be compelling evidence in favour of their authenticity. I would agree that melting down authentic coins to make inexpensive fake ones would NOT be economically sound from the perspective of the modern forgers."


I did not say that they were actually metallurgic tested.
But I think that a metallurgic test would be good.
Such cheap coins are generally not metallurgic tested, test is too expensive and in no relation to their value.
That is why they will likely have used modern silver if they are actually fakes, because no nie will ever do a metallurgic test on them because of the costs.

These coins were minted over a very long period of time and the style and style quality varies much many artists were involed.
Some authentic ones with pretty crude style exist, too.
Forgers generally try to imitate the style and features of the coin issue they try to fake.
So you can be sure that the style is leant on authentic coins.

Artificial wear is generally not very convincing, these fakes often have very fine scratches or hairlines. (put them in a stugg bag/pocket with other fakes and put them into dryer and they will rub on each other...)

I do not like condemning coins bases on style and confirming other coins based on style as authentic.
There have been often enough authenitc coins been condemned because of unusual style for issue which were actually authentic (at excavations hoards with die matches were found and the coins were later rehabilitated).
And fakes with good style passed and fooled experts.

To condemn on style alone is error-prone.

This suspected coins do all have another problem, the were all made by the same artist (which is not good).

I do only care for argument and I do not care for names !
I will always follow the one who has imho the best arguments.


I do not know based on what information Barry P. Murphy has condemned them.

Did he do a die study if yes, with how many authenic examples did he compared them with 10, 1000 or maybe 1000+ ?
Which literature, museum and private collections were resarched for possibly die matches?
Is he familiar with this issue and does he know all for this emission/issue typical and atypical features?
For example some ancient coins were only minted at a specific die axis, so a different die axis would mean always fake, correct die axis would mean possibly authentic.
Are all for this emision/issue specific features correct on these fakes or not?
Is silver ancient or modern?
etc.

"Is there not consensus in the numismatic community on whether coins of the type posted originally by Barry are fake?"

If you look in acsearch how many aution houses sold this coins and if you look how many dealers offer and sold this coins I seriously doubt that there is a consensus that they are fake.
If all would agree that they are fake, then they would not sell them!

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2017, 08:57:50 am »
These were condemned as fake for many reasons. In 1999 when CNG had the entire "New York hoard" of fake Apollonia Pontica's we returned them to the Bulgarian source. In exchange we were sent a hoard of several thousand histaia tetrobols, all of this bizarre style. Metallurgical tests were done and if I recall they were the same silver content as the apollonias, about 92% silver. At  the time I showed images of the coins to BCD and he agreed that they were forgeries. You won't find any of this style coin in the BCD collection. Like the apollonias, they weren't destroyed by the sellers, just sold through different sources.

Unfortunately at this point they've been sold by enough dealers that don't know they are fake, Roma, bertolami, peus, lanz etc... that the records on coin archives and acsearch are polluted with them. Here's a pile of them sold recently.

Barry Murphy

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2017, 09:17:34 am »
In 1999 there was a consensus that these were fake. I've discussed them with BCD, Italo vecchi, Eric McFadden, frank kovacs, Alan walker, victor England, and a host of other people at the time and all agreed they were forgeries. The fact that certain dealers sell them isn't proof of authenticity. There are a lot of fake and tooled coins that dealers sell regularly, that doesn't make them authentic.

There are no die links between these and authentic coins. These always show up in groups that are homogenous and don't contain authentic coins. Several years ago there was a large hoard of authentic histaia's on the market, I remember looking at a group of 3-4000 at a us dealers shop, and there wasn't a single example of this style in the group. These stand out when placed along side authentic examples. The style is wrong, metal is wrong, flans aren't made the same way. Nothing about them is correct.

Barry Murphy

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2017, 09:27:57 am »
To increase the confusion, in the years when the big quantities of uncleaned coins were coming from Bulgaria, some of these fakes were worn, aged and mixed into the uncleaned coins.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Meepzorp

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 4456
    • Meepzorp's Ancient Coins
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2017, 02:13:05 pm »
Hi folks,

Here is my example (scroll down, last coin):

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/meepzorp/g_euboia.htm

My example doesn't look anything like the known fakes posted here in this thread, so I assume that is a good sign. Does my example look like any of the known genuine examples or any of the ones from the BCD collection?

I purchased it in circa 1999-2001 from an ancient coin dealer who, at that time, was known for selling ancient coins cheaply. I guess you can refer to them as "beginner coins". He purchased bulk lots of ancient coins in lower grades and sold them individually.

Meepzorp

Offline peterpil19

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
    • Ancient Coin Traders
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2017, 09:27:05 am »
Thank you Barry and Joe.

We continue to see these coins on the market despite the warnings being given some time ago so it is a timely reminder to all.

Hi Meepzorp, your example does not match the known style of the fakes.

Peter

Offline n.igma

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
  • Life is bigger than a Tweet.
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2017, 09:29:11 pm »
.... There are a lot of fake and tooled coins that dealers sell regularly, that doesn't make them authentic.

There are no die links between these and authentic coins. These always show up in groups that are homogenous and don't contain authentic coins. Several years ago there was a large hoard of authentic histaia's on the market, I remember looking at a group of 3-4000 at a us dealers shop, and there wasn't a single example of this style in the group. These stand out when placed along side authentic examples. The style is wrong, metal is wrong, flans aren't made the same way. Nothing about them is correct.

Barry Murphy

... Unfortunately at this point they've been sold by enough dealers that don't know they are fake, Roma, bertolami, peus, lanz etc... that the records on coin archives and acsearch are polluted with them. Here's a pile of them sold recently.


That's a little disturbing on two counts. Firstly, most of the noted dealers have been around long enough (most in fact longer than the history of these fakes) to know better. Secondly, they handle enough of these types regularly to spot the fact that "Nothing about them is correct."

I am coming to the conclusion that with few exceptions, most dealers these days regard their authenticity refund policy as sufficient so as to ignore authentication requirement and in so doing throw the onus of proof and burden of authentication onto the buyer. Caveat emptor indeed.
All historical inquiry is contingent and provisional, and our own prejudices will in due course come under scrutiny by our successors.

Offline Enodia

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
  • ~ For My Star ~
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2017, 09:59:03 pm »
I am coming to the conclusion that with few exceptions, most dealers these days regard their authenticity refund policy as sufficient so as to ignore authentication requirement and in so doing throw the onus of proof and burden of authentication onto the buyer. Caveat emptor indeed.

indeed.
this is the same philosophy currently ruling the pharmeceutical industry...
"we don't need safer drugs, just an iron clad disclaimer".

~ Peter

(spelling error intentional)

Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2020, 05:20:34 am »
One of these is currently for sale by a very reputable and honest seller.

MA95564. Silver tetrobol, See SGCV I p. 233 note following 2498; regarding imitatives of a 2nd century B.C. type from Histiaia, North Euboea, Greece, F, earthen deposits, reverse rough, edge split, Roman military mint, weight 1.126g, maximum diameter 14.7mm, die axis 0o, c. 168 B.C.; obverse head of nymph Histiaia right, wreathed with vine, hair rolled; reverse IΣTIAEΩN, nymph Histiaia seated right on stern of a galley holding naval standard, wing ornament on hull, ornate apluster

Barry Murphy : "Please note the style of the obverse with the flowing hair, pointing
upwards, and the large pellets making up the flowers. This hair style
is not found on authentic examples. Also notice the rather poorly
executed reverse. On these forgeries AIEWN is always behind the
nymph, although this does exist on authentic examples as well. ISTI
is always before the nymph's feet. All have the wing on the prow,
some very poorly executed and none have any symbols below the prow"

Link is from where I cited this,

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/histiaia_001.html

Link to the merged picture of the coins condemned by Barry Murphy

http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg

All of this characteristics can be found on the coin for sale but must be all coins with this characteristics really fake, I do not think so!


And I am still not convinced that all of these condemned by Barry Murphy must be fake.

1. The coins condemned by Barry Murphy have 2 different styles and so must be the work of 2 different artists.

2. I could not find die links between the supposed fakes of the two artists

3. In fake hoards there seem to be only example of one artist but not any of the coin of artist 2.
In the fake hoards shown by Ilya Prokopov non of this fakes by this artist 2 can be found.

4. In fake reports are only two of them and they are condemed because they are suspected to be cast fakes and not because they were suspected to be of modern dies. In the fake hoards shown by Ilya Prokopov non of them is found. No coin from this artist has been condemned in fake reports to be a modern hand cut die fake.

5. Different flans, some of the flans of artist 1 look strange and different as they look on authetnic  coins, the planchet of the coins of artist 2 look like on authetnic coins. The fakes artis 1 are generally mint state, artist 2 are often corroded and with encrustrations.

6. This was a very huge emisson over a long time and even ancient imitaions exist so we must expect that there will be coins from many different artist and so even emission specific features can be different and we can expect that authentic so far unlisted/unpublished coins will appear on the market from time to time.

Picture 1 The coin for sale imho 100% authetnic

Picture 2 The  by Barry Murphy condemed fakes

Picture 3 The 3  by Barry Murphy fakes vs the coin for sale and 2 cast fakes from same artist, to show that they have same style and are from same artist.

Picture 4 my 2 fake vs 2 authentic ones same stlye as the coin for sale vs another authentic coin completely different style

Picture 5 added my 2 authentic coins from same artist with same style

Links to the cast fakes in fake reports

   
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-6405

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-4025

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2020, 09:26:54 am »
I really don't have the time to rehash all these at this point. I see several photos above attributed to me which I didn't have anything to do with, although my name's been assigned to them. The only photo I had anything to do with is the first one, and even that one was mostly pieced together by someone else (who at this point I don't recall as it was almost 20 years ago). The later photos are hodge podges put together by other people mixing some real coins with the forgeries.

The ones in the first photo and all the ones of this same style are forgeries. I had 4-5000 of these on my desk in 1999/early 2000. They came from the same forgers as the Apollonia Pontica fakes from the "New York" hoard. Metal tests on several hundred of them proved beyond any doubt that they were forgeries. These ranged from 70-92% silver whereas authentic ones are in the 96-99% silver range. BCD who collected this series didn't have any of these in his collection because he considered them all to be forgeries as well.

At this point 100's if not 1000's of these have been recirculated onto the market, via ebay and international dealers. Too many people have a vested interest in calling them authentic. A quick Coin Archives search reveals nearly 30% of the first 100 on the list are forgeries being sold by Solidus, Savoca, Nauman, Peus, Felzman, Roma and others. I'm not interested in re-arguing these again any more than I am Becker forgeries. To me this case is closed.

Unfortunately for the ancient coin market there are now a lot of dealers who were never trained by older dealers and are too young to remember the forgeries of the 80's and 90's. There are also a number of older dealers who just don't seem to care anymore. I see lot's of Sicilian tetradrachm fakes from the late 70's and 80's re-entering the market through these newer dealers. Italian bronze coins that we used to call "M&M bronzes" are seen on the market again (they were called this because M&M was the major dealer selling these Sicilian bronze forgeries). Messembria diobols are making there way back onto the market.

Barry Murphy


Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2020, 10:02:21 am »
bpmurphy   "The later photos are hodge podges put together by other people mixing some real coins with the forgeries."

"Please study these photos. They are all fake.' -- Barry Murphy"
You wrote this with a link and a picture my Picture 2 previous thread

http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg

The thread in ancient.info is sadly dead but the picture is still alive, here is the link to dead thread

http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=877

And here you can read what was posted in this thread at ancinets.info

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fake-histaia-tetrobols-one-slabbed-by-tpg.45760/

here is a video on youtube of ancients.info thread where you posted them by a fan ^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wPNOlCD-ic


bpmurphy  "I really don't have the time to rehash all these at this point. I see several photos above attributed to me which I didn't have anything to do with, although my name's been assigned to them."

Only one has been attributed to you picture 2, ("Picture 2 The  by Barry Murphy condemed fakes") which you have posted at ancients.info and which is still online (the thread and the forum ancientsinfo where it was posted is sadly dead but the link to some of Barry Murphy´s pictures is still alive).

http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg

For picture 3 + 5 I cut out 3 coins of your picture from http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg   and merged them with the coin for sale and my coins to show that they share the same style and are from the same artist.

I never wrote anywhere that the pictures 1+3+4+5 are from you I only mentioned that I have cut out 3 "fakes" of your picture and merged them together with the coin for sale and my fakes and the cast fakes in fake reports to show that they share the same style and are from the same artist. (pictures 3+5). I did not edit my previous post since he posted and I do not understand how this can be misunderstood.

If the coins shown in the picture "  http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/images/misc/histaiacomp.jpg    " are fakes from modern hand cut dies then my two coins and the coin for sale with identical style and from same artis must be fake, too.
But my two coins are imho authentic, I can not see anything wrong with them, they are in trash box becasue they are really bad preserved and cheap and I do not care much about them but I care if authentic coins are condemned as fakes, and this could be the case here.

the thread in ancient.info is sadly dead by the picture is still alive, here is the link to dead thread

http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=877

And here you can read what was posted in this thread, (actually what was posted alread here the picture 2 and what I have cited)

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fake-histaia-tetrobols-one-slabbed-by-tpg.45760/


I had condemned many years ago an authetnic coin as fake based on style (style was modern and looked very similar to Bulgarian fakes) but coin was authentic I realized soon after it, immediatley modified and corrected it and apologized, And I suspected 2 altered gold Aurei to be cast fakes, which I clearified later when I realized that they are authetnic and just altered.
We live, we learn. Since then I am very careful when it comes to condemnation of coins, because I realize often enough that I am not as good as I think and want to be and that I still have to learn much. But I do now check arguments of others used for condemnation very carefully, too, to learn more and to warn them to avoid wrong condemantions.

Artist 1 many different variants of hair style and reverse style
Artist 2 almost no visible differneces between dies amost identical obverse and reverse only small differences like the number and position of pellets in hair.



Offline Din X

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2021, 04:15:37 am »
I have searched ANS and found by chance 3 of them in their collection one is a Bequest of E.T. Newell (he died on February 18, 1941) so this one has an old pedigree. The other 2 coins do not seem to have a visible pedigree so I do not know when and how they came into their collection.

To death of Newell

http://numismatics.org/magazine/historywinter05/


Bequest of E.T. Newell

http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.24042

Without pedigrees

http://numismatics.org/collection/1948.19.779

http://numismatics.org/collection/1948.19.778

Copyright of pictures beolongs to ANS


Offline Altamura

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Histaia Tetrobol - second opinion
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2021, 05:51:04 am »
... The other 2 coins do not seem to have a visible pedigree so I do not know when and how they came into their collection. ...
Their accession numbers (1948.19.778 and 1948.19.779) point to the year 1948.

Regards

Altamura


 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity