Ancient acquisition

"mazorj" wrote in message
...
To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have
one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession:

O

Here is the reverse side...

Q

and the edge view,

[||||||]

I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector
with your vast detailed knowledge
can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's
a counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't
provide a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a
poseur who's here for the chit-chat.

- mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master

I'll take a shot...

Obverse seems nice and clean, although detail is a bit low.
That's a nasty cud on the reverse. Die clash? Broken die?
Reeding is clear and well defined.

Probably an AU50 Trade dollar - genuine

Close?

--
Jeff R.

Reid Goldsborough wrote in
:

On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Zero coin-related
responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed.
It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive
coin.

Sorry, Reid. You and I are just not in the same collecting camp. I have
exactly one ancient coin in my entire collection, and I barely know
anything about that one. And, AFAIK, I have no counterfeits. If I had
an interest in ancients and thought I could, I would certainly have
tried to meet your challenge. But, I've only really collected US coins.

Sorry.

Eric - the clueless

On 4/13/2010 1:52 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:

I think that if you came right out and described it as counterfeit in your
first post, you might have received more responses. Tell us how and why you
identified it as such. Those of us who don't collect ancients probably had
no idea of what might be unusual or "more than meets the eye" about it,
never having seen one before. As a non-collector, so many of the ancient
coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's
authenticity, especially from a photo.

I'll just address one issue you bring up, for now. Ancient dies were all
engraved by hand. Planchets were created by hand. Coins were struck by
hand. There were no reducing machines, electric-powered presses, all the
rest. Hand tools were used, but it was very much a manual process, and a
craft. What you see as "crude" appears to be the variability that
necessarily resulted from the hand-crafted nature of ancient coin
production.

As with modern coins, some ancient coin types were designed more
beautifully than others, and some were struck more carefully than
others. Late Roman bronze coins -- the piece I linked to is a copy of a
late Roman bronze coin -- aren't generally considered among the most
aesthetic ancient coins. But many numismatists familiar with the entire
span of coin production, from the beginning 2,600 years ago until today,
regard ancient Greek coins minted in Magna Graecia as history's most
beautiful. Naturally, some disagree, so no need to point this out.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two disagreed
over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.

Different people. I don't know if the whizzing wizard ever told anyone
to bite him or referred to people's private parts online.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On 4/13/2010 4:34 PM, mazorj wrote:

You admit that you posted a crap image

"Crap image"? I said no such thing. Instead I said it was a typical
image posted online to sell such coins.

of what is an ugly crap coin

I didn't admit this either! I know, it's fun to put words in other
people's mouths. This makes it easier to criticize them that to discuss
what they actually said.

I suppose some people regard fourth century AD Roman bronzes as "ugly
crap coins." I don't.

Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that:
You are fascinated with coins that are not real coins, but counterfeits
of foreign coins

This was a counterfeit of an ancient coin, not a foreign coin. "Foreign"
and "ancient" have very different meanings in numismatics, though
"world" is a better term and used more than "foreign." The word
"foreign" is especially inappropriate when applied to the coins of
ancient Rome and Greece because we owe our heritage to them. They
originated who and what we are.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two
disagreed over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.

Different people. I don't know if the whizzing wizard ever told anyone
to bite him or referred to people's private parts online.

Got it, my bad.

James de Contrite

On 4/13/2010 8:23 PM, Eric Babula wrote:

Sorry, Reid. You and I are just not in the same collecting camp. I have
exactly one ancient coin in my entire collection, and I barely know
anything about that one. And, AFAIK, I have no counterfeits. If I had
an interest in ancients and thought I could, I would certainly have
tried to meet your challenge. But, I've only really collected US coins.

Fair enough. Well, one ancient coin is better than none. g A lot of
collectors of U.S. coins choose not to go back further in time.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/13/2010 1:52 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:

I think that if you came right out and described it as counterfeit in
your
first post, you might have received more responses. Tell us how and why
you
identified it as such. Those of us who don't collect ancients probably
had
no idea of what might be unusual or "more than meets the eye" about it,
never having seen one before. As a non-collector, so many of the ancient
coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's
authenticity, especially from a photo.

I'll just address one issue you bring up, for now. Ancient dies were all
engraved by hand. Planchets were created by hand. Coins were struck by
hand. There were no reducing machines, electric-powered presses, all the
rest. Hand tools were used, but it was very much a manual process, and a
craft. What you see as "crude" appears to be the variability that
necessarily resulted from the hand-crafted nature of ancient coin
production.

As with modern coins, some ancient coin types were designed more
beautifully than others, and some were struck more carefully than others.
Late Roman bronze coins -- the piece I linked to is a copy of a late Roman
bronze coin -- aren't generally considered among the most aesthetic
ancient coins. But many numismatists familiar with the entire span of coin
production, from the beginning 2,600 years ago until today, regard ancient
Greek coins minted in Magna Graecia as history's most beautiful.
Naturally, some disagree, so no need to point this out.

My point in citing the crude, hand-crafted, appearance of most ancient coins
to non ancient collectors was referring to how hard it would be for one of
us to recognize a counterfeit, in person or not. As a modern copper fan, I
do like the looks of many copper and bronze ancients mainly because of their
hand-rendered details, compared to modern engraved coins.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two
disagreed
over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.

Different people. I don't know if the whizzing wizard ever told anyone to
bite him or referred to people's private parts online.

Not yet, but in your case I'd be prepared to make an exception.

--
Jeff R.
(as long as we understand it is metaphorical)

Jeff R. wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/13/2010 3:29 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two
disagreed
over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M.

Different people. I don't know if the whizzing wizard ever told
anyone to bite him or referred to people's private parts online.

Not yet, but in your case I'd be prepared to make an exception.

Jeff, I dragged you into this by mistake. Sorry.

James, Again Contrite