Ancient acquisition

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
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

No apology necessary. No dragging needed.
I find all this endlessly amusing.
Particularly the simple fact that Reid just "doesn't get it".
And probably never will.

--
Jeff R.

On 4/13/2010 8:53 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:

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.

Point well taken. Ancient coin authentication is similar in some
respects to modern coin authentication, but different in other respects.
With ancients, the considerably more extensive variability in planchet
shape, design details, strike, and so on can make things more
challenging. But the basics are the same: Knowing the characteristics of
authentic coins in general and authentic coins of the particular type
you're looking at and knowing the characteristics of counterfeit coins
in general and the counterfeits commonly seen of the type you're looking at.

In the case of the counterfeit of the Constantine II bronze I
illustrated in the opening post of this thread, the only way to know
it's fake is seeing it in context. I take no credit for discovering it
or other modern fakes of the same type. I gleaned the following
information from multiple Web sites, including Counterfeit Coin
Newsletter, No. 13, January 2010, published by Robert Matthews.

This is one of the so-called "Smederevo Hoard" (sometimes written as
"Smederovo Hoard") fakes. This wasn't a genuine hoard of unearthed coins
but a group of similar coins that no doubt came from the same forgery
workshop. That workshop was probably Bulgarian, but Smederevo refers to
a city in Serbia, which is where the (fake) hoard reportedly was
unearthed. The fakes are believed to have been originally dispersed in
Germany last summer. One person though indicated that a Serb sold a
large number to a legitimate dealer in Austria, before they were
exposed, so there's a possibility they originated not from Bulgaria but
from Serbia.

Along with coins of Constantine II, these fakes also copied the coins of
Constantine the Great, Constans, and Delmatius. Twelve different coin
types were part of this group, with each fake made from the same die.
These are die-transfer fakes. Genuine coins were used to create cast
dies, then the copies were made from those dies, likely with a hydraulic
press.

Coin dealer Zach Beasley indicated the fields are too flat and the edges
are too sharp, but in hand, at least to my eyes, this isn't terribly
apparent, same as in the photo I linked to. Another person who examined
a group of these in detail said that all of them have the same type of
attractive artificial patina, with some bright new copper showing
through at some of the higher points. He also pointed out that there's
nothing about these pieces that screams fake.

So, with this particular counterfeit, the only way to know it's fake is
to know the type of counterfeit it is and to have seen counterfeits made
from this particular die.

--

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

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"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?

Shhh! I want to see if Reid gets it.

On 4/14/2010 6:23 AM, mazorj wrote:

Shhh! I want to see if Reid gets it.

No, you outsmarted me again. But please tell us more about "UseNet."
LOL. I'd love to hear more. You previously said how "UseNet" hasn't
"changed to any significant degree" in more than 25 years. That's an
astonishing statement. Note that unlike you, I don't put words in
others' mouths. These are your words exactly.

For the amusement value, and getting back to this thread, how about
telling as also about how fourth century Roman bronzes are "crap" coins.
Again, your word exactly, though in this case you indicated that I had
said this when it appeared that this was your sentiment. But it's
difficult to know sometimes with somebody like you exactly what it is
that you're saying. Do you feel this way about late Roman bronzes? Do
you know ancient coins at all? Maybe you know them as well as UseNet.

--

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

"Jud" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 4:34 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

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 hope someone can identify this coin, because I have one just like it!
8-)

Damn, so much for it being a unique find!

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/14/2010 6:23 AM, mazorj wrote:

Shhh! I want to see if Reid gets it.

No, you outsmarted me again. But please tell us more about "UseNet." LOL. I'd
love to hear more. You previously said how "UseNet" hasn't "changed to any
significant degree" in more than 25 years. That's an astonishing statement.
Note that unlike you, I don't put words in others' mouths. These are your
words exactly.

For the amusement value, and getting back to this thread, how about telling as
also about how fourth century Roman bronzes are "crap" coins. Again, your word
exactly, though in this case you indicated that I had said this when it
appeared that this was your sentiment. But it's difficult to know sometimes
with somebody like you exactly what it is that you're saying. Do you feel this
way about late Roman bronzes? Do you know ancient coins at all? Maybe you know
them as well as UseNet.

Ahhhh shaddup! g

On 4/13/2010 10:07 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:

So, with this particular counterfeit, the only way to know it's fake is
to know the type of counterfeit it is and to have seen counterfeits made
from this particular die.

Here's something related to what I said above that I forgot to mention,
another complicating factor. This relates again to the following modern
counterfeit of an ancient Roman bronze coin of Constantine II:

http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg

Any time you're dealing with a fake made from an authentic coin, whether
a cast copy or as in this case a struck/pressed copy made from cast
dies, there are going to be authentic coins out there made from the same
dies. This applies to fakes of U.S., world, medieval, and other coins
coins no less than fakes of ancient coins. So seeing coins made from
these dies doesn't necessarily mean that they're fake. This is yet
another reason for needing to factor in context.

Die-transfer fakes like these can be some of the most convincing. The
Big Tree Coin Factory, exposed by Susan Headley in Coin World and at
About.com, uses a similar die-transfer technique. There are diagnostics
you can use through even with die-transfer fakes, depending on the
particular fake. Some crispness is lost in the transfer process, so
sometimes the fake can be diagnosed by a slight mushiness, though the
mushiness typically isn't as much as with most cast fakes. Another
diagnostic is if a different minting process was used than with the
original coins, leading to different characteristics involving the
edges, rims, fields, weight, size, or alloy.

--

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 10:07 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:

So, with this particular counterfeit, the only way to know it's fake is
to know the type of counterfeit it is and to have seen counterfeits made
from this particular die.

Here's something related to what I said above that I forgot to mention,
another complicating factor. This relates again to the following modern
counterfeit of an ancient Roman bronze coin of Constantine II:

http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg

Any time you're dealing with a fake made from an authentic coin, whether a
cast copy or as in this case a struck/pressed copy made from cast dies, there
are going to be authentic coins out there made from the same dies. This
applies to fakes of U.S., world, medieval, and other coins coins no less than
fakes of ancient coins. So seeing coins made from these dies doesn't
necessarily mean that they're fake. This is yet another reason for needing to
factor in context.

Die-transfer fakes like these can be some of the most convincing. The Big Tree
Coin Factory, exposed by Susan Headley in Coin World and at About.com, uses a
similar die-transfer technique. There are diagnostics you can use through even
with die-transfer fakes, depending on the particular fake. Some crispness is
lost in the transfer process, so sometimes the fake can be diagnosed by a
slight mushiness, though the mushiness typically isn't as much as with most
cast fakes. Another diagnostic is if a different minting process was used than
with the original coins, leading to different characteristics involving the
edges, rims, fields, weight, size, or alloy.

Didn't I tell you to shaddup? g

On 4/14/2010 7:49 PM, Scurvy Dog wrote:

Didn't I tell you to shaddup?g

It's really easy to ignore you, but here's the one and only one response
I'll send you way. Aside from me, you've made more posts than anyone
else in this thread, eight in all. Every one has been a flame and
without content. This isn't an exception with you but the rule. A quick
search indicates that only a small percentage of your posts in this
newsgroup are about coins, with most being just really dumb flames like
this one.

You post anonymously. You're like countless other anonymous flamers who
have been in this newsgroup and others. But you now appear to be the
most frequent and flagrant flamer here in RCC.

Every time you flame as you do, same as others like you, you announce to
the group that you're a profoundly unhappy person who needs to vent like
this, anonymously, taking your frustration out on others without having
to accept any responsibility for your actions. You're entirely
transparent, from the descriptive and unintentionally comical handle
you've chosen for yourself to the dopey posts themselves.

You add a slight and unimaginative twist to run-of-the-mill flaming by
trying to anticipate the criticism others will level against you and
criticizing others first in the way you think they'll criticize you. The
criticism appears to be totally off-target in just about every case,
based as it is not on the actions of others but on your own. As just one
example, you repeatedly and dully accuse me of never admitting I'm
wrong, pointing to the same Right Man Syndrome page over and over, when
the reality is that I've admitted mistakes in fact and in behavior any
number of times here. I do this offline as well. Try as I do to avoid
them, I make mistakes like everyone else. The approach I take with
mistakes is trying to use them as a learning experience rather than
denying them or denying I make them.

But reality like this means nothing to you. You're just about the flame,
unhappily venting whatever it is that makes you unhappy and angry,
hiding behind your silly handle. You appear to be ignored by most here
as an unfortunate and unavoidable reality of unmoderated Internet
discussion. I'll go back to ignoring you now too.

--

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

On Apr 14, 8:19*pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:


You post anonymously. You're like countless other anonymous flamers who
have been in this newsgroup and others. But you now appear to be the
most frequent and flagrant flamer here in RCC.

Reid, if you don't know who Scurvy Dog is, you really are out of touch!