Briac

i want to inform you about a seller on ebay who can cheat any of us who show a little over-enthusiasm  (it was my situation last year)

this guy does sell perfect copies of genuine roman coins which where sold in auction houses between 2016 and 2020

I sure they are fakes because I'm or I know the owners of the genuines

his ebay shop is https://www.befr.ebay.be/str/getod4?_trksid=p2047675.m3561.l2563

picture 1 IMP CAE (Sic !) M ANT GORDIANVS AVG only specimen known
top fake from this dealer (mine)
bottom genuine from solidus numismatik auktion 9 lot 476 (hungarian collection)

picture 2 IMP CAES M ANT GORIANVS (Sic !) AVG (4 specimens known)
top fake from this dealer (hungarian collection)
bottom genuine from Tauler y fau Subasta 61 lot 1340

picture 3 IMP CAES M ANT GORDIANVS AVG/ P M TR P II COS P P Jupiter seated holding thunderbolt (9 specimens known)
top genuine from solidus numismatik auktion 9 lot 474 (french collection)
bottom fake actually for sale

Comment of the ANS to the Sponsianus coins
https://numismatics.org/pocketchange/sponsian/?fbclid=IwAR2PuaWuUvZ5ml7T_UhzVLPwEtbmOicS1ClckdZB3BwhuSA6vtNKDHx0HDs

4 minutes ago, Nick said:

I’m not deliberately changing your words, just trying to get a better understanding of why you are so forcefully opposed to the study.  

I am opposed to this publication because the conclusions are ideological but are described as scientific by the author in the mainstream press. the title "Gold coin proves 'fake' Roman emperor was real" is just a lie... with the same results I give the title "gold tokens prove that austrian minister was an idiot"

I am opposed to this publication because Sponsianus was never an emperor, at best we would be dealing with a local usurper but that too is uncertain, I would even say improbable.

I'm opposed to this publication because there is no rigurous, objective, and fact-based datas for the conclusions, so the conclusion is not a scientifical conclusion

1 hour ago, Nick said:

Science could indeed eventually tell us how long it takes to get those encrustations, but it has not done that yet.  This present study points to that very area as an important place for more research.  As our knowledge currently stands, the encrustations appear to be consistent with contemporaneous ancient encrustations on gold and there is no indication they are artificial. That is an important observation, don’t you think? 

please don't change my words, yes in the future we will have more knowledge and yes in the future it will probably be possible to determine the age of a coin based on an incrustations.

Yes it is interesting to raise the fact that these fields of research are to be developed

but no, the results are not proof and to date it is not possible to determine the age of these tokens and therefore to determine that these tokens are ancient on the basis of the results obtained is a matter of ideology

8 hours ago, Tejas said:

Well, I don't think that this is a fair assessment of the work undertaken by the authors of the study. Science can certainly give us indications how a material was treated. It can tell us if articifcial substances have been used to apply encrustations or if the surfaces have been artificially manipulated to create a certain appearance.

Put differently, if the authors had found artificial compounds in the encrustations and concluded that they were man-made, I guess you would be among the first to exclaim that science has proven that the coins are fake, just as you knew all along. We should not reject scientific evidence just because we don't like it. 

Science can tell if there is glue, but it can't tell how long it takes to get those encrustations.

here we raise the limits of science because there is no comparative data

Assuming that these encrustations take 3 months to form, what would be the value of your evidence?

By the way, if authors had found it, this talk does not exist...

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

Well, there is evidence, but you don't find this evidence convincing, which is a different matter. Hopefully, other people with the required technical skills and means agree with you and re-examine these deposits to our satisfaction.

there is no evidences only interpretations made because of an ideology. Science don't tell when the coins have been buried, science don't tell how long they spent in the ground, science don't tell when the gold was melted, to be exact, science don't give any informations about genuiness, science only say it's compatible with genuiness but it's also compatible with modern forgeries and authors choosed genuine

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

I think to prove that something could have been done is no prove that it actually has been done. If I understand correctly, the authors of the new study have shown that the Glasgow coin shows wear that is consitent with or typical for circulation. And, on top of this wear they found  encrustrations, which they claim is consistent with the coin having been buried in the soil for a long time. At the same time, they found no artificial substances or glues. 

So even if we could show that these encrustations could be replicated with 18th (or better 17th century technology) this still leaves the question open of how likely it is that a forger of that period would go through the processess required to produce the wear and tear and the encrustations. 

I think to prove conclusively that the coins are 18th or 17th century fakes, we would need a second technical examination, which disproves the present one, by showing the presence of artificial substances ( or other kind of glues) or by demonstrating that the wear and tear occured after the formation of the encrustations.

Since style, manufacture and weight are of no use in a case like this, it is down to technical evidence. At present the available technical evidence says that the Glasgow coins had seen circulation and was buried in the ground for an extend period of time before coming to a public collection in 1713. This evidence has to be dealt with on its own terms.

You forgot 2 points...

1) the wear is compatible with circulation but Becker perfectly imitated this wear on his production, so this is in no way a proof. (even more because authors tells it themselves)

2) the authors say that they do not know the time necessary for such concretions to form, it may be compatible with a currency that has spent centuries underground but may also be with coins that have spent a few weeks or months there. .. we do not know how to determine the burial time

12 hours ago, singig said:

According to the study(Fig 3- provenance trails) there are six known Sponsian specimens , I have summarized them below:

specimen #1  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #2  Vienna Münzkabinett (Austria)

specimen #3  The Hunterian, University of Glasgow (UK)

specimen #4  Paris ?  lose track 1830

specimen #5  Brukenthal National Museum (Romania)

specimen #6  Herzogenburg Monastery ? (Austria)   lose track 1923

Vienna Münzkabinett has a excellent online catalog , but unfortunately I was unable to find photos with them  , using Forgeries tag or Gold tag  https://www.ikmk.at/tag_search?lang=en

You can find below an old image with specimens #1 , #2 and  #6 , the image was posted by the user Nefarius Purpus in a similar thread on CoinTalk:

https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-4-18_11-41-12-png.1290273/

the Paris specimen was stolen in 1831 with a lot of gold coins and was melted down, when they were arrested, the burglars confessed to having melted down the gold coins and hid the ingots in the Seine where they were found.

For the sepcimens in Vienna you can find them in the google drive I gave 

I give you here the analysis of Nick Vaneerdewegh (Senior Numismatist near Leu)
 

Quote

 

As most you of you have probably read in the past few days (including on this facebook page), a scientific article was recently published which claims to have authenticated a gold coin of an enigmatic usurper named Sponsian, kept in the Hunterian in Glasgow. Six such coins are recorded, of which four can currently be located (a silver example is mentioned, but has not been located). The coins formed part of a larger assemblage, supposedly discovered in Transylvania in 1713, and were at the time accepted as real, until they were condemned as (poor) fakes in the 19th century. The gist of the article is that, while these coins are highly anomalous, analysis of the deposits on the coin indicate prolonged burial and that the coins are thus a product of Antiquity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285.g001 (photo of the Hunterian example)

I'll admit that when I first saw articles appear in the media about the 'new' discovery with accompanying photos of the coin in question, I was highly sceptical. Nothing about the coin looked particularly real - it rather seemed like a poor cast fantasy piece barely a cut above your average tourist fake. A trickle of articles soon became a flood, however, and suddenly a new Roman usurper was added to the annals of ancient history.

I've discussed the piece with colleagues and read some comments by scholars who have all expressed extreme scepticism. Since the media and a lot of fellow collectors seem to take the findings of Pearson et al. at face value, I think it appropriate to take a closer look at their arguments.

First of all, the article deals with more than just the Sponsian coins. As mentioned, they formed part of a larger assemblage including types copying or basing themselves on Republican and Roman Imperial coins.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285.g002 (for the differing types in the assemblage)

1. The authors mention how past researchers saw the assemblage as the product of an early 18th-century fraudster. The current article, on the other hand, stresses that the coins are unlike other more carefully produced fakes from the 'early days' of coin collecting. The coins 'used newly engraved designs as hubs rather than real coins' and the third century supposedly wasn't very popular with collectors. As for the Sponsian, they say the following: 'It also seems odd that Sponsian was given such an involved context of other fake designs, that his coins are numerically in a minority among the known wider assemblage [...], that they are the least impressive of the various designs, and that no special care was taken either in the engraving (especially the obverse legend down one side of the head only) or manufacture [...]. If early price catalogues from 1823 onward are taken as a guide, the Sponsian coins were not especially valued by collectors in comparison to those of well-known emperors.' All of this only seems odd if you assume that every forger is very accomplished or really understands what he's doing (which, considering the many ridiculous fakes out there, is certainly not the case). An assemblage containing what appear to be crude imitations of Roman coins is probably exactly the way I'd go about peddling some unknown usurper. The argumentation is basically turned upside down - the sloppiness of the Sponsian coins is suddenly taken to be indicative of their authenticity rather than the other way around.
2. The authors argue that the name 'Sponsian' was unknown at the time and is only known from a single inscription now (in fact, a total of three are known, two of which were certainly found after the coins, however). The Latin verb 'spondere' (from which Sponsianus is probably derived) means 'to pledge', 'to promise' or 'to assert'. A convenient name for a usurper. While the argument is not completely without merit, it hardly forms conclusive evidence.
3. Since the coin looks like an obvious fake to anyone with some experience in ancient numismatics, the authors turned to (electron) microscopy and spectroscopy to analyze the coins. This all looks and sounds quite impressive. Two authentic third-century aurei were compared with the four coins of the assemblage kept in Glasgow (the Sponsian, a Gordian III 'medallion' and two Philip I/II 'multiples').

3.1) First off, the gold content of all coins was tested. As expected, the genuine aurei had a high gold content, while the other coins had a somewhat lower gold content. The authors themselves admit that 'either they are ‘modern’ forgeries or, if ancient, we suggest they were most likely made from imperfectly refined ore'. In addition, the metal composition of the cast coins fluctuates between the three differing types, i.e. Sponsian, Gordian and Philip I/II. As per the authors: 'the two coins of Philip (Type 4) are sufficiently similar that they may have been made in the same batch although this cannot be known for sure. This might be considered weak evidence in favour of the coins’ authenticity, given that a hypothetical forger would have been likely to have cast all them in one operation.' This is weak evidence indeed, as I don't see why it is so likely that a forger would have cast all differing types in one operation. It is perfectly thinkable he created each group at differing times and/or with different metal before selling the whole.

3.2) Secondly, it was determined that the real aurei were struck, all other coins were cast (for the Sponsian this is visible at a glance). They note that the cast coins are all relatively crude in design. A reference is made to 'Aurum Barbarorum', gold (and silver) coins struck north of the Danube imitating Roman designs, but the authors state that AB is not cast like our coins (not entirely true, cast AB is attested) and that the weights are much lower (the known Sponsian coins all weigh between 9 and 11 g., while AB usually weigh between 5 and 7 g.) In other words, the authors do not believe the Sponsian coins should be grouped with Aurum Barbarorum. Furthermore, the cast coins show no sign of being plated and their peculiar designs make it unlikely that we are dealing with ancient forgeries. To quote the authors: 'We are forced to conclude that either they are outright fakes made to deceive the antiquities market in the eighteenth century or they comprise a unique category of ancient coin'. Yes, which could it be?

3.3) Thirdly, Pearson et al. decided to investigate wear. This is a curious choice for one seeking to investigate third-century gold coinage as gold in particular was generally rapidly hoarded. Oh well. The wear patterns under high magnification are similar between the two groups. Pearson et al. admit that modern scientific literature is limited when it comes to the study of wear on coins. Some comparisons are made with other coins (notably, 19th-century gold coins), but I'm left to wonder whether it makes a difference that the Sponsian is cast. At any rate, the authors themselves admit that wear can be simulated and that 'a detailed comparative study of microscopic wear patterns on a range of historical fakes of different types and ages is clearly desirable, but beyond the scope of this investigation. Pending such information, we must view the evidence from wear alone as inconclusive as regards authenticity'. Wonderful.

3.4) Not deterred by all the previous points, Pearson et al. finally find some real hard evidence by studying the deposits on the real coins and on the cast assemblage. A Hail Mary at just the right moment if I've ever seen one. Or is it? We're on even shakier ground here than with the wear, since now we have no comparable studies. In other words, we don't know how a long a coin should be left in the ground for it to acquire the deposits the cast coins show. All the authors have proved is that all coins were at some point buried, dug up and cleaned. They conclude as follows:

'In principle, the Sponsian group coins could have been manufactured at any time between the accession of the Emperor Philip in 244 CE and the first historical record of their existence in 1713. We must, however, allow time for the wear and burial described above. We are unable to devise any remotely plausible scenario that can account for the wear patterns, overlain by cemented earthen deposits, other than that they are products of antiquity. The previous consensus among coin specialists that they were faked in the eighteenth century is clearly untenable.'

Except, they've already admitted that wear can be simulated and their study of deposits on Roman coins, itself an apparent novelty, is based on a sample size of a mere two aurei. Again, the authors write 'How long the questionable coins were buried for is difficult to estimate given the lack of comparative data. Study of coin finds from secure archaeological contexts of different ages and environments may one day help constrain the rate of silica neosynthesis on gold surfaces.' I.e. they have no clue what the deposits exactly indicate, and it is merely their belief that the Sponsian coins are ancient that makes this evidence conclusive in their eyes. Plain confirmation bias.

To sum 3) up. The Sponsian coins are much heavier than the regular gold coinage struck during the third century (and heavier than Aurum Barbarorum too). In other words, if real, they were special coins of heavy weight, not unlike a ceremonial or donative coinage. But what a shoddy donative it was. The gold content falls below that of the gold coinage of the era and the coins are crudely made and cast rather than struck. I cannot stress enough that Roman gold coins were struck, not cast, and that certainly goes for (rare) gold multiples. The authors continuously stress how everything about these coins is unlike anything else known in Roman numismatics. I'd say that's a very bad sign. As for the wear and deposits, the authors themselves admit that they have little to no comparable data. In other words, they're grasping at straws.

4) Next comes a contextualization of the coinage.

Right off the bat, the authors mention that the case used in the obverse legend, 'IMP SPONSIANI', is the genitive case, not nominative or dative, as is standard on Roman coins. Our 'unique' coins just became even more unique! About the reverse they say the following: 'Curiously, we note that the reverse design from a Republican-era denarius features the legend C AVG which in the original model denotes the moneyer Caius Augurinus, but which would likely have been interpreted by most people in the third century as ‘Caesar Augustus’. It is possible that this was a deliberate act to associate Sponsian with these titles, but more likely just coincidence.' The latter is definitely more likely.

They continue: 'The large variation in weight, both between coins of the same type and between the different types, suggests that they could not have a meaningful face value and hence they must have been traded (as the extent of wear indicates they were) as bullion.' Or, as is more likely, the forger cared little for correct weights, as he was relatively incompetent. Are we really to believe that gold multiples were struck with no fixed weight standard?

The iconography of the assemblage as a whole also poses a problem: 'The most difficult problem to explain about the wider assemblage is why some of the design elements were in faux-Republican style.' If you insist on their authenticity this is certainly a problem. The explanation they offer is complete fantasy. To me, it merits no further discussion.

5) The final part of the article discusses Sponsian as a historical figure. Since the coins are fake, this is a piece of historical fiction. It does make for a good laugh from time to time. The article claims that '[...] to develop the hypothesis, we suggest that the Sponsian series coinage was used to pay senior soldiers and officials in gold and silver by weight and then traded down at a high premium for regular imperial coins that were already circulating in the province from before the time of crisis.' Behold, the crappiest donative coins ever produced. That is not all, the authors 'predict that at some point a Sponsian group coin will be discovered in a secure archaeological context. Indeed it is surprising that no well-attested find of this type has been made in modern times (one of the more compelling reasons they have been regarded as fakes).' Compelling indeed.

To sum it all up, the article is mainly an exercise in confirmation bias. The authors want the coins to be real, and any and all evidence will do. Nothing is right about the Sponsian coins - they look wrong, the metal content and the weights are wrong and they do not match the context of the time period. The authors' study of wear patterns and deposits gives the article a veneer of solid science, but it is based on flimsy evidence. On a side note, some collectors have suggested the coins are, in fact, Aurum Barbarorum coins. I find that unlikely (based on weight and manufacture), and do note that not even the authors of the article believe the coins to be Aurum Barbarorum.

The authors thought they struck gold, but sadly, it was fool's gold.

 

11 hours ago, Roerbakmix said:

Hi @Briac, thanks for your reply, and glad you received my email. Welcome to the forum!

 

perhaps interesting to note that this coin was found in Belgium.
 

That's great, could you send me more details about this find?  it's funny to see Gordians appear near the house (I'm living near Charleroi)

before talking about age of the coins, you should read this publication of 1923 about those coins 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_4hf9NVFLWkUGzLucDsapktTHzGM1Nd/view

5 hours ago, Tejas said:

Very cool, I have seen the dies before on a Ukrainian detectorist website, where detectorists sell their finds. I think this coin belongs to the large group of imitative gold coins from Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria and Romania (Aurum Barbarorum as Leu has termed them)  of the 3rd and 4th centuries, which have come to light in the last 20 years or so.

 if you can find that data again, it would be realy helpfull for this analysis. are you speaking of violity auctions?

but thes "sponsianus" coins are not from the "aurum barbarorum" serie, the weight are too heavy  and more than anything els, aurum barbarorum coins ares not poor cast..

17 hours ago, Nick said:

Do you think this could have been a poorly made flan that was subsequently struck, hence the casting bubbles?

I don't think so because to fill the head, the strike needs a minimum of force (the head is still at least 3mm thick) so to leave bubbles, you would need huge bubbles.

 

If you want it, may your wishes be granted.

here is the only one I took since I was at the Bibliothèque Nationale for the Gordian's coinage, it was my 1st visit in the museum for my book

axe 0-6 28.40mm
axe 3-9 27.31mm
weight 13.73g

picture took in oct. 2010 with hundreds of other coins of Gordian I, Gordian II, Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III and Tranquillina

Happy?

Hi guys, 

if you are on facebook there is a great analysis made by Nick Vaneerdewegh (senior numismatis near Leu) on the group "Ancient & medieval coins" 

I also asked some questions to the author on "cointalk" because I found problems in his publication and I'm waiting his answer 

Since i got some of the so called Sponsianus coins in hand a few years ago I can tell you to my eyes  those are modern forgeries

Hi guys, no doubts to me, it's Gordian, you can read ΓΟ around 12O'clock on obverse

1 hour ago, Prieure de Sion said:

Hi Briac... have you any idea where I get your book - every place I look its sold out... 

unfortunately the book is out of print and the author of the photos of the coins in my own collection has made a complaint to the publishing house, which has decided to no longer publish the book.

I was thinking to do a second edition (corrected and completed) in english but I don't have time to do it actually

Hello everyone, I received a mail this morning to inform me about this antoninianus and so I came to see it. 

For first I have to thank you for the comment about my book I really appreciate to see it. 

About this coin, I know 2 other specimens of this type (see picture 1) both from same dies and I didn't list them in my book because of an old talk with Thibaut Marchal who prove that those where ancien imitation 

By the way, in the Georges His collection was another coin from same obverse die (see picture 2)

To my eyes, the style of obverse die is quite strange.

Georges His and Triton V cataloguer did missattributed the PAX AVGVSTI to Antioch, 
R. Bland didn't add this coin in his theses but add a lot of other coins from the G. His's collection.
Gemini auction did attribute the Pax to Roman mule 

I don't believe in an official obverse die for this coin even more because the probability of finding 2 official hybrids of the same obverse die but different reverse is close to 0

best regards