| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,378 |
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
Hello again guys, Further to my previous post, see the attached coin and advise on it please. Thanks all Yaz @Bob @dspenciner @echizento  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
Terone, Macedonia tetradrachm. Perhaps another one for the authenticating service.
|
|
New Member
 34 Posts |
@Bob you are great! I really like you knowledge and fast interpretation. Do you think that this example is as rare as the previous one?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
Rare for sure if authentic...not sure how rare, though. I do have doubts. Here's a comparison to one from Forum's fake coin reports, below. Obverse certainly seems to match.  |
|
New Member
34 Posts |
The matter of authenticity seems to be so sophisticated. However, I will also send this coin to an authenticating service and I will update you accordingly.
Bob, I am afraid that merging the two photos together may result in readers be under the impression that both coins are fake when mine still needs further investigation and certification. Would you please separate them until we are sure?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7066 Posts |
With respect, they should remain together for people to form their own conclusions. If you participate in a forum like this, and post coins asking for opinions, be prepared for opinions you may not like.
Let us know the results once you hear back from the service(s).
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
Yes I understand your point. But what I mean is that people will be under the impression that both are examples of fake coins rather than that one of them is under investigation still. Also, the image will stick on search engine images results and some people who are unaware of this post and the discussions taking place may rely on the merging images. In other words, if the coin appears to be authentic later the merging comparison images will remain.
I would suggest that you, at least, mention that the coin on the top is "In Question".
I hope that will be met with appropriate understanding.
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
@Bob
Further to my previous reply, I have a lot of interesting Greek, Roman, Nabatean, Byzantine, Umayyad etc coins that I want to share on the forum for valuable discussions and knowledge exchange. There are many coins within my collection that are not published yet. I am sure that this forum is for people to learn and know the truth at the end of the day, and merging my coin with the fake one in one image without mentioning that mine is "In Question" may cause harm to the truth and may mislead readers and search engine searchers. Again, it will be greatly appreciated if you mention on the merging image that the coin on the top is "In Question" and the coin below is "Fake". Thanks a lot for understanding.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
167 Posts |
seems relatively straightforward. The top coin is being researched while the bottom coin (slightly porous) is a counterfeit.
While I have a few common ancient Greek city states, I've nothing rare. Oh, I did buy a foree double siglos from CNG this year; that's probably rare but I doubt anyone would want to counterfeit something so weird & cheap.
I guess SEM (nondestructive) metallurgical analysis is not available of an authentic specimen & yours? Given that these were probably only locally produced, there's probably trace elements in signature quantities like Sn, Sb, Pb, etc. Also Ohaus makes a higher precision digital scale so you can get a 2nd decimal point on the weight like NN.XY grams. It has a wind shield. Unfortunately I put mine in long term storage when I came to Brazil & now only have a cheap postal scale.
When I bought my Aes Grave at foreign auction some years ago I sent it to to David Sear for authentication.
Edited by Gallienus
09/08/2016 10:47 am
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
@Gallienus thanks for your participation. You are right and thats why I am asking Bob to either separate the coins in two different images or amend the merging image by mentioning that the top coin is being researched.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
167 Posts |
Hi, I meant that as originally posted I didn't think that anyone would confuse the coins and think that the top one was counterfeit. This side by side portrayal is often used to compare an authentic coin & a counterfeit.
As far as "bots" mislabelling your coin, I have no clue.
Please do post what you find out; your specimen is very different from the counterfeit.
Edited by Gallienus
09/08/2016 10:42 am
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
@Gallienus Yes I will of course update you with the outcome after I further investigate the coin and send it to a grading/authenticating service. I do believe that it is authentic for the same reasons mentioned in my previous post about the other coin on the link below: https://goccf.com/t/268986 |
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
I think this one might turn out to be genuine. It's not really a rare coin compared to the previous one, in the $4500-$5000 range. You should send it in for authentication and let us know. If you can add a picture of the edge it would help. The reference for this type is Sear # 1289.
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
@echizento I will soon add a picture of the edge.
|
|
New Member
34 Posts |
@echizento please see the edge of the coin.  |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,378 |
|
Posted 09/08/2016 08:16 am
