Dafydd

@DonnaML I understand the position of @Restitutor perfectly, life is too short to litigate. The defamatory accusation made against me doesn't add up to much because anyone with a modicum of intelligence and grasp of the English language would have seen that I was not the accuser but someone else was. Empty vessels rattle loudest. Clearly someone had access to my private email address and that association alone was enough to confirm to me, as an individual, the source of the claim. Personally I am not vindictive and derive no satisfaction from making such a post but I am not complacent . In similar situations in the past when advising clients I fall back on the often misattributed quotation, " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Fortunately our anonymity is maintained by our forum names. If this was a different situation my lawyers would be reacting faster than a "New York Minute" to protect my reputation.

Well the response doesn't surprise me and of course everyone is entitled to air their view in open debate. You cannot give offence you can only take offence. The email I received was unsolicited and had the senders name and email address. How did he or she obtain my private email address and know I was a previous client as surely this is confidential information? From my perspective I have committed no libel as I simply posted an unredacted email as it concerned me. I was convinced by the screen shots as I do not believe they would be in the public domain. I was not the author of the material and would be happy to share the senders email address, attachments and time of receipt to anyone with a pm including Katz and any authorities. I did not share the attached screenshots because they revealed consigners and that would not be proper. If I was duped, so be it, but I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone else. I do not appreciate the intimidatory and misinformed manner in which I am referred to and fall back on the adage, "don't shoot the messenger". What is reassuring is that it is apparent that collectors , dealers and auction houses are reading such forums and that can only be good for transparency and for the ongoing protection of collectors. Perhaps no more exotic provenances for Eid Mar denarii? Perhaps that lengthy thread should be removed until the matter is heard in court? I do not believe anything has been reported that is not in the public domain so what could be the problem? If we look at the recent thread posted by @DonnaML about her concerns about a potentially fake coin , will this initiate an intimidatory message from a reputable dealer giving life time guarantees? I doubt it, but the open and honest discussion and debate posted today about @DonnaML's concerns epitomises the value of this forum in which we support and encourage each other. Long may this last. I won't lose any sleep tonight and I fully appreciate the position of @Restitutor and for me the matter is closed but I will think twice in the future about raising any future concerns openly. Possibly I posted originally in haste but I was shocked by the email and its attachments. I have made my own decision regarding this auction house and will not add anything further to the matter.

Good point, Peter, thank you.

I use it for historical military items as does my local museum. It protects against humidity and gives a barrier from oxygen which of course stimulates oxidisation, I should use it more on coins and will consider this. A little goes a long way but in my experience, I warm up the items on a radiator first, which minimises excesses. The British Museum uses this stuff so that's good enough for me. I wouldn't lose any sleep using this. I have a couple of coins being treated for Bronze Disease and the minute I am happy that I have achieved the best I can, I will be applying this wax. It concerns me greatly that some of our coins have survived for 2000 years , we dig them up, expose them to atmosphere and then start more deterioration that the preceding 2000 years. I am no chemist, I am an engineer and would love to be reassured that this is not the case but sometimes I wonder if collectible coins were disintegrated because of bronze disease 200 years ago because no-one considered the issue intelligently?

This is my latest ancient that is somewhere between Germany and Wales at the moment. Kings of Macedon. Uncertain mint in Asia Minor. Alexander III "the Great" 336-323 BC. Struck 323-310 BC Bronze Æ 20 mm, 5,63 g Head of Herakles to right, wearing lion skin headdress / Club and bow in bowcase, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ between; race torch below. Nearly Extremely Fine

Here are three of mine that I am fond of. It is a difficult choice for me as I have been putting together a collection of moneyers that interest me but I lean towards the last years of the republic although my first coin predates most of these by 100 years. M. Vargunteius AR Denarius. Rome, 130 BC. Helmeted head of Roma right; XVI monogram below chin, M#VARG behind / Jupiter driving triumphal quadriga right, holding palm frond and thunderbolt; ROMA in exergue. Crawford 257/1; RSC CRR 507. Vargunteia 1. 3.77g, 20mm, 5h. Mark Antony. AR Denarius, autumn 32-spring 31 BC. Legionary issue. Patrae(?) mint. Obv. ANT AVG III VIR R P C. Praetorian galley right. Rev. CHORTIS SPECVLATORVM. Three signa decorated with wreaths and rostra. Cr. 544/12. AR. 3.05 g. 19.00 mm. R. Rare. Banker's marks. Iridescent toning. About VF. Technically still Republican at this point. Ref Julius Caesar RSC 49 denarius Julius Caesar. 49-48 BC. AR Denarius. CAESAR in exergue, elephant right, trampling on serpent / Simpulum, sprinkler, axe and priest's hat. Cr443/1; Syd 1006; BMCRR (Gaul) 27. 17.97 mm 3.44 g

Hi @Deinomenid, I replied privately to @John Conduitt, the auction house has nothing to do with coins thankfully so not relevant to mention as the items they sell are way outside the interests of most on this forum. Nothing terribly exciting and I would be happy to let you know privately but they have no involvement in numismatics or antiquities. I have no problem naming and shaming bad experiences in respect of coins . If you relate the truth you are not libelling so that wouldn't stop me. Fortunately for me I have had some fakes kindly pointed out to me in the past by considerate and more erudite members than me and their actions has saved me quite a bit of money. Some early bad experiences have encouraged me to buy from dealers with money back life time guarantees. I have returned four coins and was reimbursed as a result of posting them here and elsewhere over the past six years. I have collected coins most of my life but for several years moved into other collecting interests as I was completely disillusioned buying coins at one grade only to find them downgraded when trying to improve them, often by the same dealers who sold them to me. As a result of my previous experiences, I can see some advantages of slabbing modern coins but I want to hold and connect with the artefact but that's another topic that has been well aired here and elsewhere over the years. My ancients collecting is not too inhibited by condition as my interest is in the history not the condition although a nicely centred good condition example is always very welcome. I traded a fine coin collection once for military and explorers medals such as medals awarded for Polar exploration, because the condition of them was not paramount, but the name of the recipient stamped on the edge was. Condition was not the issue here but forgery could present problems. To quote an example , a Crimean War Medal named to a regular soldier could be bought for say $200 but the same medal awarded to a someone who rode in the "Charge of the Light Brigade" would sell for $5000. During the 1980's some criminals actually replicated the stamping tools to make fake "Charger" medals. These were discovered and the culprits arrested. Sadly when there is money to be made, it can attract the unscrupulous. I've been a member of the Orders and Medals Research Society for 50 years and pre-internet, their journal was the main source for reporting fakes. Now we have great resources for coins and medals on line but of course those at fault are not going to publicise their nefarious activities and this is why this forum is so good but it is sad that scenarios such as Roma have to be reported and take up so much space. I started this post because it is somewhat sobering when someone advises you that you have been taken advantage of and I felt the email should be shared as it might save others some grief in the future and allow perhaps a different approach to bidding. I try to avoid live auctions because I don't have the discipline not to be impetuous and now I would be concerned that I would be bidding against the auctioneer. In the final analysis it is a question of Caveat Emptor and fortunately advice is always available here and there seems to be no reticence in broadcasting bad experiences for the benefit of all. The danger is conveying an opinion which could be disagreed or misconstrued. If you seek the truth, you can't hold an opinion.

In a moment of madness last month, I decided that every ancient Roman collection should have an Alexander the Great Drachm. As soon as I bid I wish I hadn't. On the day , I was fairly relieved that my bid had failed at my bid amount of 150 Euros. I assumed the bidder had made an earlier bid and won on precedence. Yesterday I happened to notice an unpaid invoice on Biddr which happened to be my failed bid! I had not been advised of this invoice previously. There can be no reasonable explanation other than shill bidding if you look at the chronology. The invoice is dated 20th August but as I hadn't seen it before it could have been sent at any time over the past couple of weeks. I am reconciled to my Alexander Drachm as it is a good looking coin and can join many other "rabbit hole" coins I have. Having actually checked the site on the auction date and seeing that another bidder had won I might have thought this was an oversight on my part but clearly something was amiss here. It's a disappointment as I've had some success over the years at this auction house but on reflection I have never had any low bid surprises. In this trail, I am Bidder 1 and the bidder who appeared to win the lot on the day was Bidder 2. On considering some of the other posts in this thread, I revisited this purchase today and checked the bid history. Date / time Bidder Bid 19 August 2023, 10:48:20 PM Bidder 1 150 EUR 20 August 2023, 05:04:44 PM Bidder 2 150 EUR 20 August 2023, 05:04:38 PM Bidder 2 130 EUR 14 August 2023, 09:11:32 PM Bidder 3 90 EUR 14 August 2023, 06:01:10 PM Bidder 4 80 EUR 14 August 2023, 02:07:15 AM Bidder 5 70 EUR 8 August 2023, 09:15:09 AM Bidder 6 55 EUR 9 August 2023, 03:50:05 AM Bidder 7 55 EUR In a similar scenario to the experience of @mcwyler in another sector in the UK there is a particular auction house in which you really have to be present as online bids cannot be trusted as the auctioneer takes imaginary bids in the room "off the back wall". I have attended a couple of these auctions and witnessed it myself. The auction house is 250 miles from my home and on one occasion I had business in the area , attended the early morning viewing and placed my bid on one particular lot only. The person who took my bid commented that I had travelled a long way for one bid and I said nothing. At the end of the day I anticipated collecting the item on my way home as I had bid over the odds and thought I would be successful. When I called ahead, I was told I was unsuccessful and outbid on the Internet. I was not devastated as I had made my best shot. 10 minutes later, the auctioneer called me to say that as the internet buyer was from the USA and unknown to him so I could have the lot at the high bid price which was around $700 higher than my bid. I could hear the gasp when I told him that I hoped his buyer would follow through as I had no interest in being railroaded into a sale because clearly he thought I was too invested in wanting to win the lot by what he considered was an exceptional journey. I have never bid at that auction house again. Needless to say the lot appeared in their next sale. This is a coin forum so I won't dwell on my experiences elsewhere but whatever happens in numismatics probably happens everywhere else.

I received the following email today which is quite extraordinary, however from some previous unpleasant experiences in another sector of collectables , does not surprise me. [anonymous email from alleged former Katz employee accusing Katz of various wrongful acts has been deleted by Admin] The email had several attachments supporting the comments above [attachments not provided - Admin]

Roman Imperial Coinage, Commodus (as Cæsar), As, Rome, 175-6, draped bust right, rev. priestly implements, 11.08g (RIC Marcus Aurelius 1539; BMC Marcus Aurelius 1533). Slightly weak on reverse, otherwise very fine, portrait better, attractive green patina. Ex Dix Noonan Webb. I will endeavour to photograph my Commodus denarii.

Caracalla and Julia Domnia GIC 2708 33.84mm 13.59 gms Homonia standing. GIC 2708

Link Serdica but different mint mark. Probus AD 276-282. Serdica Antoninianus Æ 22 mm, 3,53 g very fine From the Tareq Hani collection Ex Savoca 123rd auction

Horse. Moneyer issues of Imperatorial Rome. L. Plautius Plancus. 47 BC. AR Denarius.. Rome mint. Facing mask of Medusa with disheveled hair; coiled serpents flanking / Aurora flying right, conducting four horses of the sun and holding palm frond. Crawford 453/1a; CRI 29; Sydenham 959; Plautia 15; RBW 1583.

You are quite right @ambr0zie I think I skipped a page somewhere! Time waits for no one.

Here is one of mine. 21.77 mm 3.27 g . Reverse Salus feeding snake, ex Michael Trenerry.

Links ; Cupid and a later Julius. Iulius Caesar. Denarius Spain 46-45, AR 18mm., 3.68g. Diademed head of Venus r.; behind, Cupid. Rev. Two captives seated at sides of trophy with oval shield and carnyx in each hand; in exergue, CAESAR. Babelon Julia 11. C. 13. Sydenham 1014. Sear Imperators 58. RBW 1639. Crawford 468/1. Toned, test cut on edge on obv.; otherwise Very Fine. Ex Navilles 2017.

My one successful bid from the latest Roma sale. A fairly common coin that fills a gap. Sadly she met an unfortunate end as she was beheaded by Licinius' troops in Thessaloniki. Galeria Valeria (wife of Galerius) BI Nummus. Alexandria, AD 308. GAL VALERIA AVG, draped bust to right, wearing stephane / VENERI VICTRICI, Venus standing facing, head to left, holding apple and raising drapery over left shoulder; K in left field, Γ over P in right field, ALЄ in exergue. RIC VI 110. 7.27g, 25mm, 11h.Near Extremely Fine.Ex Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 94, 15 December 2007, lot 765;Ex Frank Sternberg AG, Auction 26, 16 November 1992, lot 441.

Here is a similar coin for your interest @expat However this is Q.ANTONIUS BALBUS and not Gaius Naevius Balbus. Obvious differences are different deity, beard, and more enthusiastic horses! Obv. Laur. head of Jupiter right , SC behind. Appears to be the principal coinage of the faction opposed to the return of Sulla to Rome. Balbus strikes as praetor by special decree of the Senate. Reverse. Victory in quadriga right holding wreath and palm. Control letter M below. 18 mm 3.88 g. Ex- Navilles 2014.

Well that was certainly a "nice surprise" for someone, I hadn't considered a Hyperpyron and the Pamphylia Tetradrachm was better than I had anticipated. I guess as @ComicMan was the first to guess a Tetradrachm, he wins.

To be honest I am overwhelmed at your logic and devotion and as a Roman collector could not contribute but I admire your collecting goals and aspirations. Mine are several centuries later. Good luck in mor erudite feedback and a way forward.

Roman Imperatorial Coinage, #LIBERATORS#, Gaius Cassius Longius, Brutus and Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Denarius, mobile military mint, c. 43-2, diademed and veiled bust of Libertas right, rev. jug and lituus, 3.71g (Craw. 500/5; BMCRR East 80; RSC 6). Very fine, old cabinet tone Footnote Provenance: Naville Auction 11 (Geneva), 30 November 2014, lot 173 Next any Postumius Albinus

Two Claudius Denarii SEAR 1846 ex-MA Shops Claudius Denarius. 50-51 AD. TI CLAVD CAESAR AVG P M TR P VI IMP XI, laureate head right / CONCORDIAE AVGVSTI, Constantia seated left of curule chair, hand raised to face. RSC 8.

MARK ANTONY. Denarius (32-31 BC). Patrae(?). Legionary issue. Obv: ANT AVG / III VIR R P C. Galley right. Rev: LEG XVII CLASSICAE. Aquila right between two signa. Crawford 544/10; CRI 373. Ex-Numismatik Naumann Next another imperatorial.

Here are a few of mine. Nero, 54-68 Semis circa 64, Æ 18.5mm., 4.69g. Laureate head r. Rev. Table seen from front, bearing urn and wreath; round shield resting against table leg. C. 47. RIC 233. Nero AD 54-68. Rome As Æ 28 mm, 8,52 g IMP NERO CAESAR AVG GERM, laureate head right / PACE P R VBIQ PARTA IANVM CLVSIT / S - C, temple of Janus with latticed window on right and garlanded and closed double doors on left. very fine RIC 347. Ex-Savoca Ref Nero Denarius, RIC 62, RSC 335, BMC 104 Nero Denarius. NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS, laureate head right / VESTA, hexastyle temple of Vesta with domed roof & statue of Vesta within. RSC 335.

Bunny Ears, did it for me! This is one to consign to Davy Jones Locker! Thanks all.