I'm not yet convinced about the re-cutting, and I see no specific evidence that we have a transfer die (although better judges might well find some).
So it comes
down to whether you think these things are pressed or struck.
I have mentioned many more arguments than only fabric
Why is there PAINT on some of this fakes
I do not think that anyone would really do PAINT on an authentic coin, why should anyone do this and damaging the coin (not sure if paint can be removed without harming the coin)?
Many fake coins
are altered to make them look old but their attempts are in most cases so bad and not convincing (artificial wear, toning
with chemicals or paint, adding test cuts
, polishing, adding scratches, repatinating etc) that they are showing, that there must be somthing wrong with the coin instead of making the coin look convincing.
But forgers do such alterings because they think it will let the coins look authentic and old and it seems to work
often enough that this very bad fakes
even fool auction
houses although they are meant to deceive unexperienced tourists.
Offered by fakes
sellers, yes this alone does not condemn a coin but it makes the coin very suspicious.
And as far as I know non of this Myrina fakes
with recut curl was found through excavations from untouched earth. (Not condemning but speaks rather agains authenticity and for its authenticity)
I bought mine from fake seller
and I have an authentic coin from this emission too.
And I can lay them side
and there are huge differences and you want to tell me I am too stupid to tell the difference between fake and authentic coin from same emission in hand.
is wrong, too flat but the Beirut forgers have more fitting planchets which are not completely flat too, see for example the planchet
of my Kyme tetradrachm
(have posted in this thread
a picture of a plastic box with my Beirut and old forgeries
The surface is very flat and no metal flow visible implying pressing rather than striking.
The edges are wrong, partly smoothed, equally thick diameter
of the flan
everywhere and no edge cracks (I have 10 fakes
from this workshop with this sepcific edge).
So the equal planchet
and edge proves that the planchets are produced the same way and the fakes
produced the same way (pressed) resulting in same edge and flat surface and this means that they must so come from same workshop, the fakes
are from different mints (Seleucid
etc.) and times and the planchets of authentic coins fromt this mints look different often the planchet
of authentic coins has a different diameter
at different places and edge cracks and is not so equally flat and the planchets of authentic coins are heated for minting so the edge looks different than on an cold pressed fake that has an equal diameter
Forgers or workshops are producing generally the planchets for all oft their fakes
the all same way!
And this is often different as they did in ancient times for this specific emission !
And they Beirut workshop seem to have for example only 2 different planchets for all of their fakes
they produced no matter if they are producing fakes
of for Seleucid
mints or for Thasos
And they did not consider or care about planchet
differences (due to differenct production or flan
preparations) of differnt mints, emissions, rulers at different times.
To planchets, for example some forgers are casting a round pellet and this pellet will be then hammered cold to a planchet
, if this is done cold the metal is not so elastic as warm metal and so there will be often edge cracks and if then this planchet
will be struck or pressed later cold you will have too huge edge crack
often found on Bulgarian fakes
And often I have fakes
and authentic coins from one emission, this gives me the opportunity to compare them in hand with authentic and fake coins
from same emission and with other fake and authentic coins and with my fake database (pictures). Others generally do not have this fortune had
have to argue only baed on pictures and so they do for exmple of ten not know how the edge looks like. And the ege alone can condemn coins as fakes
and for modern dies fakes
if the forgers did not produce the planchet
the way they did it for this emission in ancient times.
We have detail loss , which can not be explained by die wear or soft striking and trqansfer errors like the prearl in the hair and recutting of details missing on the mother (again if we have enough coins from the same die we can reconstruct the details that were in ancient dies). This are problems that can be found on transfer die fakes
and not on authentic coins.
And again there are many authentic coins from this obverse
die known before and after die break in hair, so it is possible to reconstruct how the details like the curl looked like in the original dies.
The curls looks identiacal on all authentic coins from this die before and after the die break, very sightly differences due to striking can be possible.
The curl look is significant different on the fakes
but always identical on the fakes
This excludes the possibility that the different appearance of the curle is due to striking or uneven wear etc. and such a difference in shape of the curl could have been hardly explained by striking, striking is not changing details so significant except slippage or double strinking and this must have been then identical on all fakes
But posting more pictures could cause more confusion so i will not do but anyone can do him- oder herself.
Ross G., what arguments do you use for comdemning coins?
And can there be not good
objections be made against each of the arguments you used to condemn coins?