Iaitos Forgeries

27 Marzo, 2015

Apparently, Suzanne Frey-Kupper believes both of these types from Iaitos are forgeries, as discussed at length in the following articles. I have not yet read the German text and have asked her to summarize her views for me in English.

Susanne Frey-Kupper, “Ein "neuer" Acheloos der Iaitiner : Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der frühe Münzpraegung von Iaitas,” in Zona Archeologica: Festschrift für Hans Peter Isler zum 60. Geburtstag (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 2001); and also, Susanne Frey-Kupper, Die antiken Fundmünzen vom Monte Iato 1971-1990. Ein Beitrag zur Geldgeschichte Westsizilien. Studia Ietina X (Lausanne 2013), 80-96 and 631-632, pl. 64. The fakes are also briefly mentioned on p. 95 and illustrated on pl. 65.

Does anyone have an opinion on these? My coin is very convincing in hand, but I nonetheless default to Frey-Kupper's view and have sought a refund. Anyway, thought I would share. Nick

Modificato 27 Marzo, 2015 da njmolinari

27 Marzo, 2015

Apparently, Suzanne Frey-Kupper believes both of these types from Iaitos are forgeries, as discussed at length in the following articles. I have not yet read the German text and have asked her to summarize her views for me in English. Susanne Frey-Kupper, “Ein "neuer" Acheloos der Iaitiner : Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der frühe Münzpraegung von Iaitas,” in Zona Archeologica: Festschrift für Hans Peter Isler zum 60. Geburtstag (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 2001); and also, Susanne Frey-Kupper, Die antiken Fundmünzen vom Monte Iato 1971-1990. Ein Beitrag zur Geldgeschichte Westsizilien. Studia Ietina X (Lausanne 2013), 80-96 and 631-632, pl. 64. The fakes are also briefly mentioned on p. 95 and illustrated on pl. 65. Does anyone have an opinion on these? My coin is very convincing in hand, but I nonetheless default to Frey-Kupper's view and have sought a refund. Anyway, thought I would share. Nick

Here is the other.

29 Marzo, 2015

Here is Suzanne's rationale, from "Ein 'neuer' Acheloos der Iaitiner" (p. 163-168):

1) The surface of the coins pl. 23.1 and 3 seem to be heavily cleaned and possible reworked.

2) The obverse dies of pl. 23.2 and 3 seem to be basically identical (body, double ground-line and the right horn) except that 23.2 no traces of the legend are visible (though they should, if they would exist). The same applies to 23.1 and 2/3, the body, the double ground-line and the right horn are identical, but the head of 23.1 is in profile, the head of 23.2/3 frontal (or 3/4).

The reverse dies of all three coins seems to be identical, but the curved ground line is missing on 23.1.

These features can be only explained, if the dies were re-cut and heavily altered by the die engravers. Yet, this many re-workings by the ancient engraver seem a bit surprising.

3) Some of the iconographic features seem to be unusual for ancient coins: namely the curled tail of the river god and the double ground line.

4) There is no supporting evidence from archaeological excavations. During 42 years of intense archaeological activities at Monte Iato (ancient Ietas) no such coin came to light. This is rather strange as, I can show for the other coins minted at Monte Iato, the coins from Ietas circulated locally. All known specimens are from trade.

I believe however that the flans of the coins are genuine. This applies certainly to your coin which looks quite good indeed (identical dies with 23.3?).

It might be that the archaeological evidence may change over time and show that I am wrong, but for the time being I am still sceptical.

I have attached the three coins she is discussing, uploading them in order.

Thoughts? She makes a compelling case, but looking at my coin in hand it is so utterly convincing. I may just keep it and hope further archaeological evidence determines these are real and that the dies were recut in antiquity.