Briac

Link : salus

IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG 
Laureat, draped and cuirassed bust right seen from rear

SALVS AVG 
salus standing left feeding snake

Sestertius 19.81g, 30.69mm, 12h

2nd liberality 239 AD

On 4/25/2023 at 11:55 PM, robinjojo said:

Wonderful examples posted!

I've collected this emperor for many years, to the point where others thought I was out of my Gordian!  

Here are a coupe of provincial issues.

Gordian III, BI tetradrachm, Antioch,  241-44 AD, left facing portrait.

Prieur unlisted

15.1 grams

congratulation for this it's only the 3rd specimen known RPC VII.2 #3507

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/3507

please share a feedback with it on the website

7 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

I did not tell Sponsiano coin are in british museum, i tell i want a various comitee of experts, not only from 1 place like BM because they look stubborn. Again if you give opinions of 100 people that’s not à SCIENTIFIC fact. But you do not understand that. Read about numismatist who give only opinions in the last 150 years and looked like fools because new FACTS was discovered. Science is not like church where only what people believe is see  like truth ! Believe is good but FACTS is better  

 

 

you wrote 

"We need more facts than opinion, is it possible to have the coin really examine by a comitee of experts, not only by british musuem who still believe Proculus coins are midern fantasies or tooled coins !"

the only person to believe that the coins are genuine being Pearson who works for the University of Glasgow... and the BM didn't took part to this study, only R. Abdy  gave his advice in the Guardian  (see https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/23/coins-study-suggests-fake-emperor-sponsian-was-real-say-scientists) 

it's far away of what you say that's why I remember you that the coins are conserved in Glasgow not in London ! 

I give you a comitee of expert with guys from Vienna, Switzerland, London, France, and many other places, even J. Mairat from Oxford and the ANS did publish answers about it !  

actually we have 2 teams

on the left the Pearson's team a geologist who give this conclusion "We are unable to devise any remotely plausible scenario that can account for the wear patterns"

on the right hundreds of numismatist and historians who said "we need more datas and need to be more prudent since there is no evidences of genuiness"

what is the best for you?

do you ask to your mechanic which medecine you have to take for fight again leprosy?


 

7 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

I’d like to know if there is a technical way to date ancient gold ?

yes the Uranium- Thorium- Helium analysis  and when I asked to Pearson why he didn't used it he answered "No destructive tests allowed"

Since I don't know the details of this method, I did accept his answer 

47 minutes ago, Filat said:

все литые римские "монеты" - это фуфло.
 

all your comment are "фуфло"

before talking you should read scientifical publications like  D. Hollard 2001 "Sesterces coulés de Gordien III et Postume dans un trésor de l'Oise" or G. Aubin Les moules monétaires en terre cuite du IIIe siècle : chronologie et géographie

you also should explain the existence of moulds like this one from my collection

2 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

Agreed ! Forget about the Sponsiano story thing, no serious numismatist or historian believe it. Leave it to medias who want scoops. My point was if we are SCIENTIFIC, we need to apply same principals for both possibilities; modern (300 year old) or ancient. Cohen and others did believe all eid mars aureus was modern forgeries, but deeper analysis proove they wrong… We need more facts than opinion, is it possible to have the coin really examine by a comitee of experts, not only by british musuem who still believe Proculus coins are midern fantasies or tooled coins !

which advices do you want? 

Have you read the document of 1923 I shared on page 2?  or the analysis of Nick Vaneerdewegh in page 3?

Maybe you would also read K. Vondrovec from the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna, he told me this in 2010

"Just by looking at this entire ensemble I would say they are definitely modern (that is 17th / 18th cc.) forgeries.
As far as I see all coins of this kind came up at around the same time and have comt into various coin cabinets at a later time."

by the way, those coins are not in BM but in the Ashmolean Museum, you should be really more rigorous if you want to intervene in such a subject ...

2 hours ago, DLTcoins said:

In my mind, the question comes dawn to whether the coins are 18th century imitations or 3rd century imitations. The differing shapes of coins from the same matrix is a fair argument against 3rd century manufacture and troubling.

The historicity of an emperor/ usurper "Sponsianus" is not worth further consideration in my opinion.

A couple of points that I haven't seen addressed. I have read that Gallienus reduced the fineness of his aureii to 94%, very close to the fineness of some of the coins in question. Coincidence?

Might the silica deposits be remains of the clay molds rather than in-ground mineralization?

 

gallienus aureus with "low" gold purity have high silver and low bronze content in the 6% (something like 94 gold / 5 silver / 1 copper ), in Sponsianus coinage we can see than silver and copper are similar, so it's also something different, gold is not all when you want to study metal composition... and take care of metal density 

density of Gold 19.3
density of silver 10.5
density of copper 8.9

 

14 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

I'm not going to engage with you on this conversation, as you clearly aren't approaching it in good faith. What I find interesting is your complete and utter disregard for the tests done and the findings, cherry picking little bits and pieces out of context. No need to respond, as I have no interest in engaging in a conversation with you about this.

it's maybe because I had some of those coins in hand, also because when I asked explain to P. Pearson he didn't answer anything serious 

in his explains he is talking of moulds but he believe that those moulds where used horizontally, but archeology proof that those where vertically used. 

he say than coins have been casted different clay moulds made from same matrix but doesn't take care than 1 matrix will provide 2 similar moulds so the coins should have similar shapes

he doesn't answer to this 

"the realy few ancient cast coins finded in same hoard and made with same original matrix are exactly the same, (see D. Hollard 2001 Sesterces coulés de Gordien III et Postume dans un trésor de l'Oise) I have picture of 3 so called "gordian gold medallions (Paris, Vienna, Glasgow), they are all different, 4 "sponsiani" all different, 4 "Philippus" all different.

how do you explain the different shapes is there is only 1 matrix?

this is typicaly what a modern faker would do to deceive the vigilance of a collector/expert but it have no meaning for circulation coins."

 he don't give any serious explain about the "traces of the mould" (remember it's a clay mould! ) on a coin which spent 14 centuries in the ground! 

my favourite of all

I asked 

 

according with your results,

Gordian 2.77% silver 0.54% copper (higly purified for the sponsian serie)
Philip around 5% silver and 0.5% copper
Sponsianus 3.83% silver and 3.39% copper

so they managed to maintain the separation of gold and silver but they did not know how to remove the copper which is nevertheless lighter and therefore easier to separate?

he answered 

"I am not a metallurgist"

so with the same thought process, you can shoot your neighbor in the head and tell the court "I'm not a doctor I didn't know it would kill her" 

If you want to talk about coins and metal composition you need to have a minimum of knowledge in metallurgy and purification of metal

13 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

Only your opinion. Give me SCIENTIFIC proofs the coin is modern. 

prudence dictates that in the absence of proof, currencies should be considered at least doubtful.

to date there is no evidence, no archaeological discovery, proving that these coins can be 1800 years old, all we can say is that the coins were buried for an indefinite period and exhumed at the beginning of the 18th century.

13 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

Sorry for the poor english language. I do agree with you Briac, no real proof but surely interesting hints, will need deeper analyse of the Sponsiano coin. No SCIENTIFIC proofs. The coin is known to be forgery, but based on what SCIENTIFIC proofs ? We need honesty on both sides. On what is based assumption of forgery ? Only on opinions or SCIENTIFIC facts ? Cohen was a king, but I can give many examples he believe was modern forgery but it was prooven later were authetic ancient coins… A lot of numismatist thought it was genuine but it is only opinions. What proofs do ee have ?

how could you proove that something doesn't exist?

it's impossible to proove that sponsian didn't exist but the scientifical way is simple if you can't proof the genuiness of an item, you have to be prudent and give it as fake

actually we have some hints but no evidences so it's totally crazy to publish somethink like "sponsian was en emperor" 

by the way more than 90% of the actually known gold coins have been finded in the 2 last centuries but no other sponsian you can see gold coins from Romania and Ukrain finded by metal detectors on instagram or in Violity auction each day but there is nothing like this. the purity of gold is far away of the genuine roman gold coins of same period, weight are incompatible with the roman system, variation of weight is impossible for coins from same types and so same value ! 

those are scientifical arguments 

I don't know any dubble aureus for Philipp but I know 3 for Gordian those are 7.27, 10.19 and 9.56g so the delta between heavyest ans lightest is 2.92g (around 28%)

for Sponsianus 
type 2 from 6.91 to 12.55, delta 5.6 g (around 44.6%)
type 3 from 12.5 to 22.73, delat 10.23 ( around 45%)
 

18 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

I'm sorry, you're saying because the work is groundbreaking it doesn't provide proof? It does provide proof, the question is whether you're willing to consider the proof provided. No doubt we will find out more when further studies are conducted.

Just remember though, there was a time when the Koson Staters were dismissed as fakes by some experts.

In re to media, if you've ever published before, you'd know that you share your findings with media to get exposure to your article. If you read their article, they use words like "suggest" and "hypothesis". It is not their fault that the media chose the angle they did. Media will do what media do.

 

you confuse evidence with clues and lines of thought, these are totally different things, proof is argued and irrefutable, here the authors themselves question their clues, this clearly shows that there is no proof!

the title "Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian" say clearly than authors have their own theory before and was trying to confirm it. as I told on cointalk (where Pearson is but doesn't answer anymore) 

the 1st fault have been made by the authors when they refered in title "roman emperor" this mention tells us directly that the authors believe in the existence of Sponsianus and do not make the difference between an emperor (authority recognized by the senate) and a usurper who only ruled a tiny part of the empire for a very short time

and I find it surprising that this kind of publication comes out shortly after the publication of a book by Pearson (a geologist) on the crisis of the Third Century which is struggling to sell even on amazon you can get discount of 17% for it but not on Ikka Syvanne's books which is an historian...

19 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented.

The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

just give 1 serious and scientifical proof, it will be funny... authors themselves saied 

the authors themselves say that

- we do not have data allowing us to estimate the time that the monanies have spent in the ground

- that traces of wear can be copied easily (Becker himself did it!)

their main argument is that they can't imagine any other situation, that doesn't make it a proof, just a theory

18 hours ago, Filat said:

авторы, скорее всего, не коллекционеры и плохо разбираются в вопросах подлинности монет. 
 

On 1/5/2023 at 4:50 AM, Filat said:

очередной вопрос для @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix ,@CPK и других комментаторов данного форума → что мы видим на концах желтых стрелок на ребре "the Sponsianus coins", на картинке ниже? → см. Рис. 8., по ссылке:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274285

저자가 보여주는 것은 발톱과 긁힌 자국에 있는 외피와 응고물입니다. 기사를 읽었다면 질문을 하지 않았을 것입니다!

26 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

That's a pleasant and most thoughtful Christmas gift. 

I'm a little confused; I guess it's still in transit?  Did it come from the UK?
 

 

Yes it's still in transit, blocked at the border...

and you are right, it's from UK it should be here soon

For my christmas goft, my dad dii offer me this coin and thought it was the reference RPC VII.2 #773, 

hopefully Santa blocked the coin at the border so he did "only" show me the picture on TV...

the RPC VII.2 #773 have this obverse ΑΥΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟⳞ

but on my new coin,  the obverse is ΑΥΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟⳞ Α

I'm so waiting for my christmass gift which is RPC VII.2 online #773A an unique and unpublished type and the only coin known with this obverse legend 

1 hour ago, Roman Collector said:

Sixty-two characters, if you count the denomination, E, in the field:


Gordian III, AD 238-244, and Tranquillina, AD 241-244.
Roman provincial Æ pentassarion, 12.34 g, 26.2 mm, 2 h.
Moesia Inferior, Marcianopolis, legate Tertullius, AD 243-244.
Obv: ΑVΤ Κ Μ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC ΑVΓ CЄΒ ΤΡΑΝΚVΛ-ΛЄΙΝΑ, confronted busts.
Rev: VΠ ΤΕΡΤVΛΛΙΑΝΟV ΜΑΡΚΙΑΝΟΠΟΛI-ΤΩΝ, Nemesis-Aequitas standing left, holding scales and cornucopiae; wheel at feet; E in field, left.
Refs: Varbanov 2052; Moushmov 834; AMNG (Pick) 1185; SNG Cop 260.

 

 

may I ask why don't you use the RPC reference? 

A nice specimen of a scarce type, congratulation

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/1444

I hope it's not only for imperial coins because for Gordian the most iconic is on a provincial coin, I share pictures of my own specimen but you can see best specimens on RPC online https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/2759

Andromeda seated l., seen from rear, chained feet, arms raised; robe hung up on a tree; below, wolf l.

hello guys, my new cheap find with this antoninianus of Gordian III minted in Roma with error in reverse legend 

CONCORDIA MLIT (Sic!) instead of CONCORDIA MILIT, second specimen known (same reverse die)

got it in auction for 30€+ fees (around 45€ all included)

16 hours ago, DLTcoins said:

Since at least the 1990s, fakes cast with modern technology can be virtually undetectable until a twin is found. Many of the fakes of this type originate in Bulgaria as noted above. One must be vigilant, especially with Roman denarii, including common mid-grade examples. Greek coins of Bulgarian type are problematic as well. Be wary not only of individual coins but also of "large lots" which sometimes include a small percentage of fakes seeded among otherwise genuine coins. Large lots of common material sold on consignment by major auction houses may not receive the same level of scrutiny as higher-end individual lots. Fortunately, Bulgaria is also a source of literature regarding counterfeit detection. The series Coin Collections and Coin Hoards from Bulgaria (CCCHB) includes a number of volumes on this topic. Dr. Ilya Prokopov, one of the authors, has kindly made free pdf versions available through academia.edu:

https://independent.academia.edu/IlyaProkopov

Print copies are available now and then on eBay and through second-hand booksellers.

 

even in famous auction houses you can find fakes in individual lots I remember a modern provincial medallion sold by Roma Numismatics and later by CNG (withdrawn by CNG when I send them a mail)

18 hours ago, Factor said:

I am glad fakes of Provincial coins are less common and the coins are more unique so one doesn't need to keep thousands examples in memory to spot suspicious doubles. 

I saw some realy good fakes in provincial too., especially in Thracian and moesian

15 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Presumably, your friend has the genuine one. But the question is whether the one for sale now is actually that coin, or whether a photo of the genuine coin is being used to sell a fake, and two identical coins do not exist in real life.

check the VIRTVS AVG

I bought the fake, the picture is mine and the coins is actually in Hungary with the genuine, 

Even is my picture is of quite low quality you can see the scratches on both coins on reverse  (between shield and leg) or on obverse (between CAE and head). 

those coins are perfect copies, the picture on ebay are the actual pictures of the copy 

1 hour ago, Curtisimo said:

Much appreciate you bringing these to everyone’s attention. Very scary!

Are you completely sure that these aren’t the exact same coin? The flan shape is an absolutely perfect match, dings indents and all.  Further, the texture of the fabric is the same. Note the roughness in the field to the right of Jupiter and the scratches in front of the nose on the obverse. That level of duplication would be difficult to achieve. 

yes I'm sure those are 2 different coins my friend in france did confirm he stil have his own at the bank 

1 hour ago, ewomack said:

@Briac Yes! Thank you for sharing! These posts are extremely helpful for all of us inflicted with coin mania.

That said, as much as I love coins, and as much as I have a growing appreciation for ancient coins, these stories always reinforce my decision to never put real money into them. From reading and researching over the years, I have basic "fake detector" skills, but no guard seems to exist against the new "terminator" breed of fakes that have arrived on the scene in the last 10 - 20 years. I believe it was Jack C. Young who used to post cases of nearly perfect counterfeits, most fully certified, on CT. I could afford more expensive coins, but the fear and risk of paying $1,000 - $5,000 for a fantastic looking coin, only for it to turn up phony, keeps me from doing that. My most expensive ancient, so far, cost $275 and I agonized over spending even that amount. For those reasons and more, I'm very glad that people continue to share these stories and that people continue to look out for these situations. Regardless, circumstances like this one will keep me buying few, and relatively inexpensive, coins and keep my collection relatively small.

price doesn't matters, I just bought an antoninian today in auction for 30€ which is only the second specimen known and I'm sure it's a genuine since I can see the crystalisation of the silver (and also because I have been fooled by the VIRTVS AVG here over)

buying fakes is sometime a good deal to since the most important is knowledge 😉

24 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

The thing that scares me the most in ancient numismatics is this kind of situation.

I wouldn't be able to detect these myself.

I was in the same situation when I bought to this dealer the VIRTVS... 

I thought I had finally been able to buy the coin previoulsy sold by Solidus but a few times later, I saw a publication on a facebook group and with exactly the same coin so I talked with the owner. By the way I know him from about 10 years on FAC so I did send him the copy for study and metal analysis, we are waiting for results now