Marc Antony and M. Iunius Silanus Denarius - Comparison and opinions wanted

[carthago]

I own the top one and the bottom one was sold by a highly reputable auction house in 2005.  Actually, mine was originally sold in auction from a reputable house but I bought it from a reputable ancients dealer who acquired it at that auction.  

I think the one on the bottom is made from my coin, but I think the one on the bottom without mine to compare it to is very convincing.  It just looks worn to me.  I showed the candidate coin to the dealer from whom I bought mine and he agreed, but thinks mine is real.  

I throw it out to the group.  What do you think?  


Stats for mine: Marcus Antonius und M. Iunius Silanus, 33 v. Chr. Denar (3,68g) Mzst. im Orient (Antiochia?). Vs.: ANTON AVG IMP III COS DES III III VIR R P C, Kopf des Marc Anton n. r. Rs.: ANTONIVS / AVG IMP III. Cr. 542/2; Syd. 1209.

Stats for candidate: Denarius, mint moving with M. Anthony c. 33, AR (3.69 g. 22mm), Syd. 1209. Cr. 542/2. B. Antonia 96. C 2.




Modified 2-26-13 to update new picture location

[bpmurphy]

When did u buy yours?

Barry Murphy

[carthago]

Jan 2010 at NYINC. 

[Andrew McCabe]

Looks at first glance as if the lower one is certain fake (but see my clarification below). IF it is a fake, THEN, that you've shown us two such fakes, given the "reputable dealer" source of the originals, is very disturbing indeed. I agree in both the case of this Antony, and the prior Octavian, that your coins look original. If there are 2 such copy-fakes then there are certainly 20 or maybe 200, of perhaps many different designs. I can't imagine what's going on.

This very much reminds me of a parallel situation, involving quite a few Republican coins, sold in the same timescale (last few years), where the genuine coins sold at major auctions, but had been copied prior to auction consignment and the copies then dribbled out on lesser venues over the last two years. In some cases, the fakes appeared BEFORE the originals, as happened here. It may in fact be the exact same situation, and the coins which I've noted are part of the same pool.

Correction/Clarification:
It is possible the two Antony's are the same coin, the lower from a bad soft photo. They are reported as weighing the same...

Re-correction:
No they are different objects, that hair-wear doesn't come from a blurred lens. I can't see how the lower one can be anything except fake, cast from the upper, then mechanically worn?

[Andrew McCabe]

Ref. my comment on other coins, in one case at least, a 2005 NYINC auction sold a fake, of which the genuine original went via a different route, a few years later. I wonder was it the same 2005 auction. In which case other coins in that auction are suspect. I'll PM you.

[bpmurphy]

I'm not 100% convinced they aren't the same coin, both technically real. The higher grade coin which appeared second is just the lower grade coin after it's been tooled.

Barry Murphy

[Andrew McCabe]

I'm not 100% convinced they aren't the same coin, both technically real. The higher grade coin which appeared second is just the lower grade coin after it's been tooled.

Barry Murphy

Worth considering, but it's difficult for me to see the upper coin as tooled. There are no direct symptoms (and usually there are symptoms). There are areas where, if tooled, it would require much of the design surface to be cut down to match. e.g. the hair to the right of the ear: if tooled, it would need the cheek to be cut back; similarly look at the relief distance between the eye and the hair: there doesn't seem to be enough vertical relief to create the detail of prominent eyebrow, forehead and prominent hair from the relatively lower relief in the lower coin. The lower feels like cast, then tumbled in a stone polisher a while. Of course photos can be deceptive when it comes to relief...

[carthago]

Looks at first glance as if the lower one is certain fake (but see my clarification below). IF it is a fake, THEN, that you've shown us two such fakes, given the "reputable dealer" source of the originals, is very disturbing indeed. I agree in both the case of this Antony, and the prior Octavian, that your coins look original. If there are 2 such copy-fakes then there are certainly 20 or maybe 200, of perhaps many different designs. I can't imagine what's going on.

The dealers I bought these coins from where different but both you whom you all would certainly recognize.  One is far more experienced...probably been in the business nearly 30 years and that is the person from whom I bought the Antony.  I've bought several coins from him and he often represents me in auctions.  I completely trust him.

The other has been in the business considerably less time, but as far as I can tell has a respectable reputation, is publicly well known.  I've only bought that Octavian from him as a present for someone that I didn't end up giving.  He doesn't usually have coins in the market I collect.  I think I bought the Octavian around 2007 or 2008. The Octavian did not sell through auction that I know of so I think it is one of those coins that was leaked through quieter means like you mentioned.

Again, you all would certainly know both of these dealers.

That Antony is puzzling to me.  The bottom one is a bit too worn for my tastes, but if I couldn't find better examples of it I would have bought it.  

[carthago]

I'm not 100% convinced they aren't the same coin, both technically real. The higher grade coin which appeared second is just the lower grade coin after it's been tooled.

I could see how you could feel that way but I just don't think that's the case.  For instance, the gouge under the bust; you can barely see it in coin #2 but it's pretty deep in mine. Would a toolie enhance a scratch?  I dunno.  Some of the flan defects or pits on the edges appear stronger in mine.  The cheek on Antony appears of higher relief in mine.  I would think you'd might as well cut the entire coin from a blank planchet if you're going to doctor it that much. 

I don't think they are the same coin but I could always be wrong with this perplexing hobby.

[bpmurphy]

The differences you mention are just a function of the lighting.

Barry

[SRukke]

Tooling silver is a bit difficult isn't it, at least to get results as good as this is concerned?

[carthago]

I pulled Marcus out of the bank yesterday and took some pictures under a microscope of the main area that would be tooled, if it is tooled.  The coin is turned to about 2 o'clock from it's normal axis to get the best lighting and these pictures are of the ear and hair above and behind the ear. These are the areas that appear to have virtually no definition on the worn corn.

I am NO expert on tooling as I usually only collect silver coins.  Like Romanorvm, I had always thought that tooling wasn't that much of an issue with silver like it is with bronze or gold.  I have very little experience looking at tooled silver coins that I know of.

I cannot see any signs of scratching or metal movement under high magnification.  The surfaces in the folds of the hair look micro-porous if anything like a lot of areas on the coin under close inspection. 

I don't think it is tooled.  What do you all, especially you Barry, think of the pictures?  I'm still stumped.