filolif

Initially I was thinking the strike similarity and die pairing may be indications of a forgery. But now I'm more concerned that these coins resemble the British Museum piece except they don't have damage to the head of the sphinx. Yet the head of the sphinx is missing! I'm wondering if there can be an explanation for that which doesn't involve modern forging: Compare: Here is the photo of the actual BM coin:

Edit: Barry Murphy has confirmed that the Leu coin below is a fake. The other Leu coin is likely a fake as well as the Noble coin. These are likely modern pressed die forgeries. I'm comparing these two Eumenes I tetradrachms which have an obverse die match with a very similar strike. Coin 1: Sold at Leu 3/11/2023 Web Auction 25 Lot 712: KINGS OF PERGAMON. Eumenes I, 263-241 BC. Tetradrachm (Silver, 28 mm, 16.98 g, 12 h), Pergamon, circa 255-250. Diademed head of Philetairos to right. Rev. ΦIΛETAIΡOΥ Athena seated left, holding a shield adorned with a gorgoneion with her right hand and with her left a spear held downwards over her left shoulder, resting her left elbow on a sphinx; to left, below her arm, ivy leaf; on the throne, A; to right, bow. SNG Paris 1606 ( same dies ). SNG von Aulock 1355. Westermark Group III, V.XXII/R.1. A sharply struck and beautifully toned example with a bold portrait. Minor marks, otherwise, extremely fine. From a Bavarian Collection, formed in the early 2000s. ------------------ Coin 2: Sold at Leu 5/22/2021 Web Auction 16 5/22/2021: KINGS OF PERGAMON. Eumenes I, 263-241 BC. Tetradrachm (Silver, 29 mm, 17.23 g, 12 h), circa 255/50-241. Laureate head of Philetairos to right. Rev. ΦΙΛΕΤΑΙΡΟΥ Athena enthroned left, resting her left elbow on shield decorated with gorgoneion and crowning dynastic name with a wreath held in her right hand; spear leaning against her side; to outer left, A; to inner left, ivy leaf; to right, bow. Westermark -, cf. V.XXXIII/R2 ( same reverse die ). Rare. A beautifully toned example with a superb portrait struck in very high relief. Struck slightly off center, otherwise, nearly extremely fine. Is it common/possible for obverse dies to be paired with each of these different reverse types? Any thoughts on this coins in general? Any doubts about authenticity of either/both piece? Edit: Found a third coin with a double die match to the first. Sold by Noble on 7/28/2020 The reverse is notably missing some elements in the design: MYSIA, Pergamon, Kingdom of, Eumenes I, (263-241 B.C.), silver tetradrachm, (16.50 g), Pergamon mint, issued c.263-255 B.C., obv. head of Philetairos to right, laurel-wreath and diadem entwined, dotted border, rev. Athena enthroned to left, supporting shield with ivy leaf under arm, A**Q* monogram on throne, bow and **FILETAIPOU* to right, (S.7218, ACNAC Dewing 2207, SNG Cop.334, BMC 31, SNG Von Aulock 7453, Meydancikkale Hoard 3005). Attractively toned, extremely fine, struck in high relief with a portrait full of character in high relief, rare. Should also note that these are obverse/reverse matches to the BM piece. Here is an electrotype sold by CNG: KINGS of PERGAMON. Eumenes I. 263-241 BC. Electrotype "Tetradrachm" (30.5mm, 17.09 g, 12h). British Museum electrotype by Robert Ready (marked RR on edge). Laureate head of Philetairos right / Athena enthroned left, holding shield in right hand, left elbow resting on sphinx seated right; spear diagonally in background, ivy leaf to inner left, bow to outer right, monogram on throne. Cf. Head, Guide, Period V.A., 9 (Attalos I); cf. GPCG pl. 32, 4 (for prototype). Toned, polished. As made. Duplicate from the England - McFadden Electrotype Collection. As you can see, the sphinx in the BM piece has damage to the head which I assume is why it's missing. Can't say the same for the examples above.

Solid hammer! Hopefully you're happy with the result. Congrats to you and the new owner.

Throwing it into the gif as well. Some similarities but not as many as the original two.

Here's a gif comparison of the coins. I definitely think they are two different coins based on the different nuances of each. Almost certainly one or both is a fake.

Based on my understanding of what is likely/possible, at least one if not both of these coins are fakes. The HJB specimen looks worse to me and could be a cast from yours. I'll be interested what others think who are more experienced. Sadly, this type is on my "never buy" list due to the fakes that have flooded the market and how I would always be unsure of the legitimacy of the piece. Unless it had an excellent provenance I suppose.

For the record, neither of these coins is mine nor do I plan to bid. The Savoca one is owned by a friend. I was just struck by the similarity. The surfaces of the Savoca one have always looked strange to me. Could just be a harsh clean.

I am comparing a Lysimachos tetradrachm from the upcoming CNG 547 sale here: https://auctions.cngcoins.com/lots/view/4-B4W4D2/kings-of-thrace-macedonian-lysimachos-305-281-bc-ar-tetradrachm-29mm-1706-g-11h-magnesia-on-the-maeander-mint-struck-circa-2976-2821-bc-good-vf To one sold by Savoca in their 161 Silver Auction here: https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=6695&lot=72 The two coins appear to be double die matches with very similar strikes. Here is a gif comparing them: Is there anything that raises red flags about one or both of these coins? Its possible they're both from the same hoard. Or is there evidence of a die transfer? Just curious what others think.

Glad to hear it! Good to know Leu will do the responsible thing in a situation like this. A shame to lose the coins though 😞

This is something many minor and major auction houses do. Some are perhaps more guilty than others. They shill bid to push prices up and relist items that aren't purchased by a legitimate buyer. Look at the lots repeatedly listed by Naumann and Leu, sometimes in back to back auctions. They will claim these are unpaid lots but in reality, their shill bids weren't able to push the prices past the secret reserve they want to sell the coin for. It's shocking to me how normalized it is for auctions to allow price manipulation through shill bidding. Its market manipulation pure and simple and its probably costing all of us money.

No one has ever said that. That in no way absolves Leu from selling stolen coins. I think it's well understood that these auction houses, (Leu, CNG, many more) may sell coins from dubious sources -- potentially looted. And if you've got evidence beyond pure speculation, we would all love to see it. So that's an everyone problem. Selling coins reported stolen from a collector may just be a Leu problem. Much more easily proven too.

ANCIENT GREECE. BITHYNYA. Nicomedes IV. Tetradrachm (c. 92-74 BC). A/ Diademed head to right. R/ Zeus left with crown and sceptre, before eagle on beam of rays, in field monogram and date GKS; BASILEWS/EPIFANOUS/NIKOMHDOU. AR 14.35g 29.8mm 650 see SBG-7276 vte. Next: fancy animal

I have a sense Leu may just be going through a protocol no matter how nonsensical it may be in this particular situation. As slow as these auction houses are to fulfil our purchases, it doesn't surprise me that they're even slower to refund our money when we are owed it. Even in your case where you've done as much as you can do from your end to try to receive the coins. Hopefully they will get you your money back when Swiss Post inevitably tells them the package was lost and there's nothing to be done. Keep us updated! Best of luck.

Are you saying the coins from the siren collection were stolen from another collector? If not, what exactly is the relevance to this thread?

Can't have a Greek zoo without an Aegina turtle or tortoise! Here's one I just picked up from CNG: ISLANDS off ATTICA, Aegina. Circa 456/45-431 BC. AR Stater (19mm, 12.12 g, 3h). Land tortoise with segmented shell / Large incuse square with skew pattern. Meadows, Aegina, Group IIIb; Milbank pl. II, 12; HGC 6, 437. Toned, edge splits, die break on obverse, flan flaw on reverse. Good VF. ex Heritage 09/2003

Weren’t you just slamming me for saying that this was all just my opinion and now you’re saying it’s so blatantly obvious that it doesn’t even bear discussing? 😵‍💫 Its a forum thread, my friend. We discuss things and not all of them are 100% perfectly proven. And they don’t need to be before we’re allowed to speculate. I was not the one who originally brought up the Roma comparison.

It didn't "come after" anyone's post. Did you actually read the context? An entirely third party decided to be offended because they apparently thought I was referencing them. There was zero intention on my part to call anyone out personally. It's not just about stolen coins. It's about an auction house receiving stolen coins, listing them for sale and when told they're stolen, ignoring the warning. This is the allegation. Sure, it's unproven but if it's true, that would likely be of much greater concern to many people than Beale's escapades. It's not just about how much it affects them personally, it's whether or not they can imagine a scenario where it could.

A good rule of thumb when you think you're being misunderstood is to rephrase what you said instead of just copy-pasting the original words and italicizing them. Certainly I wouldn't be capable of misinterpreting them if they were italicized! 🙄 I don't have any issue with your statement in general, only as it corresponds to what I've said, which should be in no way offensive to anyone. It's simply a fact of life. One that everyone would do well to recognize and accept. And in some cases, be aware of their own personal tendencies so they can navigate to a more morally defensible position.

Is there a reason you aren't being accurate about this? It's not "a few comments made on the internet". It's a single comment, made by the owner of another major auction house. That context matters quite a bit, wouldn't you agree? Totally nonsensical. I simply made a statement about human nature. I'll state it a third time. People are much more likely to be concerned about things that affect them personally. That's it. That's all I said. There is absolutely no reason to be offended by that.

It does not refer to fellow forum members, it refers to anyone who would minimize Beale and think it's entirely different from Leu potentially selling stolen coins. While the two are not the same, they are not entirely different either. I don't think people should minimize either issue. I see both as very serious. Its not clear to me why you took personal offense at my characterization as it seems relatively tame and self-evident to me. People are much more concerned with things that would affect them personally.

I have no idea what you're talking about. My point is that more people minimize the allegations against Beale because they can't conceptualize being the victim of that crime. As a collector, it's much easier to imagine having your coins lost/stolen in the mail and then ending up for sale elsewhere. Hence why I imagine fewer people would minimize that. Does that make sense? Do you see my point?

I have a feeling that fewer would excuse Leu selling stolen coins since it would be stealing from the collector and not stealing cultural heritage from a country. Funny how people's opinions change when they can imagine it affecting them personally. Also, between the two of them (Leu and CNG), I tend to trust CNG. I've had some very concerning experiences with Leu and I can't say the same about CNG. Nothing but professionalism from them. I have a feeling Mike would say more if he could but doesn't want to stir the pot too much. There is likely something to these accusations but since no one here is personally involved, we will never get the details.

I do indeed. 12.13 g which seems in line with the type. Definitely didn't worry me at the time. They didn't explain in detail but I know they had several experts look at it. All they told me is that they determined the flan to be ancient but the dies to be modern. I should have mentioned this but yes, the weight and flan were generally spot on for the type. Other than being maybe a very small amount more compact than the average tortoise stater. It would be great to know more about how this coin came to end up for sale with Dorotheum. They seem to operate at a bit of a glacial pace and I would doubt they are going to do a lot of follow-up on it. As buyers, we would really benefit from knowing as much as we can about how these high quality fakes are manufactured and come to market. Indeed. One of the reasons I was waiting to post this thread so I could report (good or bad) about how well Dorotheum dealt with a fake coin. I'm happy to say they did refund me but communication was often non-existent or slow and laborious as you might expect with a firm that's been in business since 1707. This is definitely the danger of collecting these very famous Greek types. Highly targeted by forgers but it seems like no coin or type is completely immune to faking.

Now that I've received a refund for this fake coin, I feel comfortable talking more about the experience. I won this Aegina Tortoise stater from Dorotheum at auction in May 2022. Dorotheum is an extremely old auction house but has fallen off a bit lately as far as ancient coins go. This coin was one of just a handful of ancients in that particular auction. A very interesting piece. I definitely recognized that it had a different "look" compared with many others. A much clearer strike and better preservation I thought. In hand, it didn't immediately strike me as unambiguously fake either. I have a couple other tortoise staters and eventually the differences between those more conventional ones and this one started to make me concerned. After almost a year, I brought it to CNG, who had several people analyze it and determined it was a fake - modern dies on an ancient flan. Heartbreaking. I then started the process of trying to get a refund from Dorotheum. They had me send it back and had their experts look at it. It took over 3 months but they did stand by their guarantee and gave me a full refund. I give them a lot of credit for that at least. Video of the coin in hand: https://streamable.com/lm25tq In retrospect, this coin probably shouldn't have been as deceiving as it was. The obverse strike has a certain softness to it and I haven't been able to find any die matches to it. The flan size is pretty unusual and while the relief of the tortoise was good, it wasn't great. Shallower than my other staters of the type. Just wanted to offer this story as a word of caution to others. Really good fakes are out there (some may say this isn't one of them), so be on alert and always try to buy from places who will give you a refund should a coin turn out to be a fake. Feel free to share any other stories you have of returning fake coins and how the process went for you. I think we should normalize this since I think it would help all collectors be better able to avoid buying fakes themselves in the future.

If every case went to a jury trial, the system would slow to a halt and everyone would have to spend months as jury members every year. Hence why plea bargaining is necessary.