Syracuse possibly fake tetradrachm in US auction

[paparoupa]

I have not seen a genuine in hand and I do not know these series well, but this coin to be auctioned in the US immediately feels highly suspicious. Any views are welcome

[cippal]

I have not seen a genuine in hand and I do not know these series well, but this coin to be auctioned in the US immediately feels highly suspicious. Any views are welcome


Could you post the link to auction?
Many thanks.
Sebastiano

[paparoupa]

37 minutes ago, cippal said:

On 22/03/2018 at 12:28 PM, paparoupa said:

Could you post the link to auction?
Many thanks.
Sebastiano

https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=4719&category=137929&lot=3889499

[cippal]

I post some coins come from the same dies sold by important auction house in the last 20 yesrs for comparison.

Gemini auction (next April) 17,33g:

 

Triton XX (ex Moretti) and Numismatica Genevensis (14/12/2015), 17,23g:

 

Leu Numismatik AG (1991-2007) Auction 83 Lot 94 (06_05_2002), 17.19g

 

LHS Numismatik AG Auction 102 Lot 90 (29/04/2008) 17.37g

 

The New York Sale Auction XXX Lot 53 (09/01/2013), 17.02g

[lipari]

Ma di questa moneta qualcuno possiede l originale??

[deadhead]

Insomma almeno 3 conii di rovescio

[apollonia]

Un esemplare autentico potrebbe essere il secondo tetradramma postato da cippal, che è partito dalla NAC una ventina d’anni fa.

SICILY, Syracuse. Second Democracy. 466-405 BC. AR Tetradrachm (26.5mm, 17.27 g, 12h). Unsigned dies in the style of Eukleidas . Struck circa 413-405 BC. Charioteer, wearing long chiton, holding torch in extended right hand and reins in left, driving fast quadriga left; above, Nike flying right, crowning charioteer with wreath held in her extended hands; in exergue, grain ear left / Head of Arethousa right, hair gathered behind in knot held with band, wearing triple-pendant earring and linear necklace with frontal pendant; ΣY-PA-KOΣIΩN and four dolphins swimming around. Tudeer 62 (V21/R40); HGC 2, 1338 (this coin illustrated); Basel 466 (this coin); BMC 224; Gulbenkian 284; McClean 2716; Rizzo pl. XLVII, 8 (all from the same dies). Choice EF, toned. Exceptional.
Ex Athos D. Moretti Collection (Numismatica Ars Classica 13, 8 October 1998), lot 466. 

[Eolo]

@gionnysicily

Buona sera, idee? Purtroppo questo tipo di argomento sembra essere di moda!

saluti

A.

[Emilio Siculo]

Il 22/3/2018 alle 12:28, paparoupa dice:

highly suspicious

To say the less...

Appena riesco scrivo che ne penso. 

ES

[Emilio Siculo]

Ciao,

riporto sotto, per confronto, l'esemplare censito come Tudeer 61 (esemplare 61 d) riportato nel testo recente di Fischer-Bossert sulle monete dei maestri firmanti di Siracusa, ovvero SNG Berlin, obj. 18211798):

Si tratta del conio di rovescio 39, molto simile al 38.

Dal confronto mi sembra che emergano numerose differenze, soprattutto ai bordi, ma non solo:

- il ciuffo di capelli raccolto dietro è completamente differente

- la lettera "ro" ha una forma più squadrata nella sommità 

- eccetera eccetera 

Mi sembra quasi troppo semplice. Mi sarò perso qualcosa?

Che ne pensate?

Aggiungo per archivio anche il diritto dell'esemplare che riposa a Berlino:

ES

[Baka]

Il 22.3.2018 alle 12:28, paparoupa dice:

I have not seen a genuine in hand and I do not know these series well, but this coin to be auctioned in the US immediately feels highly suspicious. Any views are welcome

Why do you suspect it?

I will post how I do authenticate.

Does the coin have any problems cast fakes, electrotype fakes or transfer die fakes have.

Electrotype:

Traces of seam where the 2 parts were joined together, the weight of electrotype fakes is in most cases wrong, softer details and an identical host/mother exists

Cast fake:

I. Presence or remains of a seam where the mold halves fitted together
II. Remnants of a casting sprue/channel where the molten metal was poured into the mold
III. Edge filing to hide the seam or sprue ( Surfaces can also be filed/cleaned)
IV. Soft mushy appearance (soapy) poorly formed details and letters that melt into the field
V. Surface voids , bubbles, extra surface metal from the poured metal (circular holes from air bubbles)
VI. Lack of flow lines/strike
VII. Lack of edge cracks or contain shallow dull cracks (most won’t travel from side to side), (edge cracks will be at least a little bit filled)
VIII. Wrong weight (low or high) in relation to known genuine examples
VIIII. Wrong size, shape or thickness. Cast coins can often be found slightly smaller in diameter and lighter due to the shrinkage of the molten metal when cooling down in casting mould
X. casting defects, knots (pearls)

XI. Individual characteristics from striking, circulation and environment from mother

It is possible to apply artificial edge cracks on cast fakes or to make already existing edge cracks stronger with  with a hammer or vise but this will  always create a "flattened area" !

Transfer die fake,

does it have any individual characteristics from host/mother from :

1. striking like soft strike, edge cracks, double struck areas, flat struck, brockage, die shift/slippage, very important the centering (often the host is not completely centered, parts of dotted border are missing)

2. from circulation, wear, scratches or bankers marks

3. from environment, corrosion

Does it have lost its very finest details details?

Transfer dies are created by casting or electroplating and this methods can not capture the very finest details !

Have some details like dotted border, which were not complete on mother/host have been recutted?

I only know recutting, when the authentic ancient die was damaged or better had a die break and so they tried to extend the life of the die by taken pressure of the area where the die brak occured by recutting rolls.

 

Now general aspects!

Does the coin have good and old pedigree or not?

Yes or no?

Comparing it with authentic specimens of this emission and with the emission specific characteristics

Is the planchet the same as on authentic, so was the planchet casted and prepared the same way as on other authentic specimens of this emission?

Is the die axis correct for this emission, some emissions were only minted at a specific die axis ?

Is the wear artificial or real ?

Is there artificial oxidation/toning or not?

Harshly cleaned or polished to hide problems?

Was the coin struck or pressed?

Pressed: Pressed = have strangely flat fields, no flow lines, no doubling, no slippage, uniform strike (no flat areas), and uniform thickness.

Is the metal ok for issue? Alloy and purity. Modern alloys can have other elements in it which can not be found in ancient metal.

Or did they melt cheap ancient coins for the right alloy?

Is the style ok for emission or not?

Are the dies matching  proven authentic examples of this emission?

Does die links/connections/combinations exist to known authentic specimens of this emission?

Did they use an ancient coin as flan/planchet?

If yes, if you overstrike on an ancient coin, the size of the planchet will expand and the edge cracks will become stronger.

Are very fine details missing on the coin and soft details, if yes, are they from die wear and or soft strike ?

 

I do not like how the coin looks in picture but I can not authenticate without having it seen in hand.

I do not like that very fine details are missing for example the hair at Arethusa forehead

I do not like that the coin is life less. NO METAL FLOW VISIBLE FROM STRIKING !

 

 

Modificato 27 Marzo, 2018 da Baka

[cippal]

Allego l'esemplare 283 tratto dalla collezione Calouste Gulbenkian.

Modificato 27 Marzo, 2018 da cippal

[cippal]

Specimen 122 from auction Bank Leu (28 of May 1974)

[paparoupa]

9 hours ago, Baka said:

I do not like that the coin is life less. NO METAL FLOW VISIBLE FROM STRIKING !

I think this sentence expresses my feeling :-)  On a closer look, the letters seem to have been re-engraved compare the "K" in the 2 coins in Emilio's post number 10 above....

[Emilio Siculo]

43 minuti fa, paparoupa dice:

I think this sentence expresses my feeling :-)  On a closer look, the letters seem to have been re-engraved compare the "K" in the 2 coins in Emilio's post number 10 above....

In my opinion the coin was copied from a host with a short flan (very frequent in this series). In more detail, it is feasible that the host missed the upper and left areas comprising hair bun and ethnic. As a consequence, the "modern artist" needed to create these features. 

Please comment on this.

Regards

ES

[paparoupa]

10 minutes ago, Emilio Siculo said:

In my opinion the coin was copied from a host with a short flan (very frequent in this series). In more detail, it is feasible that the host missed the upper and left areas comprising hair bun and ethnic. As a consequence, the "modern artist" needed to create these features. 

Please comment on this.

Regards

ES

Yes the bun is ridiculous, it looks more like the hair of a maenad in the hektes of Lesbos

Modificato 28 Marzo, 2018 da paparoupa
post by mistake

[SERGETAI]

Buongiorno. La moneta che allego sembra avere molti punti in comune con quella di Berlino.

Il punto in esergo che sembra essere presente negli esemplari autentici, il taglio del collo,il riccio di capelli vicino alla K e quello vicino alla coda del delfino

[gionnysicily]

Il 27/3/2018 alle 20:49, Eolo dice:

@gionnysicily

Buona sera, idee? Purtroppo questo tipo di argomento sembra essere di moda!

saluti

A.

Ciao @Eolo, mi scuso se non ho potuto risponderti subito, impegni.......

Commentare questo tetradramma FALSO , non è difficile....basta osservare ( a parte le condizioni generali) il ciuffo raccolto dei capelli e rendersi conto che le punte dei capelli NON sono quelli creati dall'incisore originale. Probabilmente il prototipo originale , non avrebbe avuto un flan largo , con dentro tutta la rappresentazione di Aretusa con i 4 delfini..

In allegato , il dettaglio evidente che è stato creato da mano moderna.

 

[paparoupa]

Sadly it was sold above estimate meaning there were at least 2 interested bidders

https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=4719&category=137929&lot=3889499

[acraf]

Dickheads.... pardon...