idesofmarch01

8 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

But (unless you find a coin that has been preserved for 2000 years) in general - all bronzes are tooled.

I disagree with this statement 100% -- at least by my definition of tooling.

At some point in their lifetime, all ancient coins ceased circulating and were stored, abandoned, lost, forgotten, etc.  When this happened, the coin exhibited some specific state of wear: it might have had only circulation wear, it may have had scratches, gouges, nicks, cuts, etc.  It is unlikely that it had surface deposits and pitting (especially gold coins) caused by chemical processes.  AEs, though, are especially susceptible to surface adhesions and corrosion that attack the coin after it ceases circulating.

By my definition, cleaning and reasonably restoring a bronze coin to its state and condition when it ceased circulating is not tooling.  This includes reasonable removal of surface adhesions -- i.e., smoothing -- that do not specifically enhance the devices or legends.

In some cases there may be gray areas as to whether the smoothing enhanced the coin's devices and legends, and this is open to interpretation for that specific coin.  There are also cases of overly smoothed fields that just look artificial even though the smoothing simply removed adhesions and lessened pits that were not present on the coin when it ceased circulating.  For these coins it's a judgment call as to whether a collector will accept that coin's condition as being authentic.

When in doubt, engage the services of an expert who can examine the coin in-hand.

23 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

@AncientJoe has a coin that's not so far off from this one. https://www.colosseocollection.com/p444364358/hf56ce893#hf56ce893

 

Interestingly, there were two of Ancient Joe's coin type in the NAC auction today.  One hammered for CHF 36,000 and the other one hammered for CHF 240,000.  Here they are (the top one was the CHF 240,000 hammer price):

Although there is a clear visual difference between the two coins even in the pictures alone, I was a little puzzled by the CHF 204,000 difference in hammer price until I read the detailed description of each.  However, there is a part of me that wonders if the consignor of the second coin did himself/herself a disservice by having it slabbed, and ending up with a "Surface 2/5" rating.  Note that NAC still grades this as "... otherwise good extremely fine."

19 minutes ago, expat said:

He has it as follows

AE AS 125-128AD

 HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS Laureate head, right.
 
  COS. III. S.C.  Galley navigation, to the right, with rowers and helmsman;  acrostolio, stern; mast and sail.

  Green patina 12.65 g. 26 mm.  RIC. 673-S.

This corresponds correctly with the new RIC II.3.

The weight and size are within parameters for this coin.

Here's a coin that sold at auction within the last year, in approximately the same condition, for around $60 including buyer's fee but not including shipping:

The legends are more readable on the auction coin which is a plus for that coin.

I see no reason to think the coin you posted isn't authentic, as long as the asking price is within reason (maybe $30 - $60) plus shipping.  If it's really cheap, I would be more cautious.

In RIC II.3 (this entire volume is Hadrian), this coin appears to be number 820:

Obv.: HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS Laureate head right, head only.

Rev: COS III; S C in exergue; Ship right.

Do you have the seller's description including size, weight, legend, and any other information?

16 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

One thing that really annoys about me about the Hercules Mastai-Reghetti, is the fig leaf that covers his genitals 🤨. This was obviously added to satisfy the prudish Roman Catholic Pope 🙄.

When I first looked at this thread I thought the statue was fake, since any first-century Roman sculpture certainly would NOT have had a fig leaf covering this area.  So if the statue IS authentic, I too would assume that the fig leaf was added centuries later.  Maybe the restoration will include removal of the fig leaf.

5 minutes ago, Captch said:

I guess I will also note that I probably wouldn't have caught the BD if I didn't have trays.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia's article on bronze disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_disease):

"As it relies upon the presence of chlorides, water, and oxygen, the absence of one of these three halts the progress, although any damage done is irreversible."

(The emphasis is mine.)  It's not the displaying of your coins in trays per se that caused the bronze disease to progress, but rather the exposure of the chloride ions to oxygen in air.  It's my understanding, then, that if you've completely eliminated the chloride ions using the sodium sesquicarbonate solution, picking, and heating, then you do NOT have to worry about the return of bronze disease even if you expose the coins to air by displaying them in trays.

The Wikipedia article is quite good and requires only a knowledge of high school chemistry to understand the process.

8 minutes ago, AncientOne said:

Only in Hollywood did Jason behead Medusa.

Isn't that the actor Harry Hamlin playing Perseus in the 1981 movie Clash of the Titans?

15 hours ago, DonnaML said:

These are all from the recent Noonans auctions -- I bought them the day before I bought the Henry VII profile groat. Noonans doesn't always have ancient coins that interest me, and it's not their primary field of expertise (they occasionally make identification errors), but sometimes they offer really nice material that I don't often see elsewhere.

Hadrian, AR Denarius, Rome Mint, AD 121 (late) - 123 (Group 3, see RIC II.3 p. 109). Obv. Laureate head right (no drapery, truncation with part of upper shoulder line viewed from behind), IMP CAESAR TRAIAN – HADRIANVS AVG / Rev. Oceanus with crab-claw horns, reclining left, leaning on dolphin (tail up), with his head propped on left hand, and holding up anchor with right hand, P M – TR P COS – III. 19 mm., 3.17 g. RIC II.3 520 (ill. Pl. 12) (2019 ed.) (“Scarce”), RSC II 1109, Sear RCV II 3518 (ill. p. 149) BMCRR III Hadrian 127. Purchased from Noonans (Noonans Mayfair Ltd., London, UK), Auction 269, 8 March 2023, Lot 628 [with old coin envelope].*

*See BMCRR III, Hadrian Introduction, p. cxxxii: “Oceanus, picturesquely defined by claws on the head, dolphin and anchor at side, clearly marks the way of Hadrian to Britain.” (Hadrian traveled from Gaul to Britain in AD 122; see Clive Foss, Roman Historical Coins (Seaby, London, 1990), p. 109.) To the best of my knowledge, based on a search of OCRE, this type is the first of only three Roman Imperial coins to depict Oceanus. See John Melville Jones, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (London, Seaby, 1990), entry for “Oceanus” at p. 225: “In Greek and Roman mythology this was the name of the river which was believed to encircle the earth. He was represented in art in the form of a river god with added marine attributes. Oceanus is found on a denarius of Septimius Severus of AD 209, alluding to the emperor’s crossing to Britain, and on a medallion of Constans I (see Bononia).”

Thus, although this type was minted a decade before the coins generally considered part of the Travel Series or "Provinces Cycle" -- which were issued towards or after the end of Hadrian's travels -- it clearly contemplates travel, and effectively serves as a precursor to the Travel Series. So I think I'll consider it an honorary member of that series.

Hadrian AR Denarius, Travel Series, Rome Mint, 130-133 AD (according to RIC II.3 p. 173: Group 10, “Provinces Cyle”) [136 AD according to Sear RCV II p. 148]. Obv. Bare-headed draped bust right, HADRIANVS – AVG COS III PP / Rev. Nilus, naked to waist, reclining right, resting right arm on urn[?] and holding cornucopiae in left hand; above Nilus’s feet, hippo standing left with head raised towards Nilus (mouth open, left ear visible), leaning against Nilus’s upraised left knee [or a rock?]; crocodile right in waters below; NILVS above.  RIC II.3 1547 (ill. Pl. 33) (2019 ed.); RSC II 990; BMCRE III Hadrian 860; Sear RCV II 3508 (ill. p. 148) (obv. var. laureate head). 18x19 mm., 3.30 g.  Purchased from Noonans (Noonans Mayfair Ltd., London, UK), Auction 269, 8 March 2023, Lot 647; ex C.J. Martin Coins (London, UK) (purchased Dec. 1997) (see notation on old coin envelope accompanying coin).

Is that Nilus's left knee that the hippo is leaning against, or a rock?

Here are the two old coin envelopes that came with the Oceanus and Nilus coins. I am reasonably sure that the handwriting on the two envelopes is by the same person. Note the reference to CJM (CJ Martin) on the Nilus envelope. I'm not sure whether the fact that the handwriting is the same implies that both coins were originally purchased from the same dealer, or simply that they were purchased by the same person, and it's that buyer who was responsible for writing the information on the envelopes.

In addition, do people think the handwriting on these two envelopes is by the same person as the handwriting on an envelope that came with another Hadrian denarius I purchased from Noonans last July, the Restitvtori Africae coin from the Travel Series?

The third new Hadrian:

Hadrian AR Denarius, Travel Series, Rome Mint, 130-133 AD (according to RIC II.3 p. 173: Group 10, “Provinces Cyle”) [136 AD according to Sear RCV II p. 147]. Obv.  Laureate head right, HADRIANVS – AVG COS III PP / Rev. Italia standing three-quarters left, holding sceptre in right hand and cornucopiae in left, ITA – LIA. RIC II.3 1540 (ill. Pl. 33) (2019 ed.); RSC II 869 (ill. p. 139); BMCRE III Hadrian 853 (ill. Pl. 63 no. 14), Sear RCV II 3499 (obv var. bare head). 17 mm., 2.76 g. Purchased from Noonans (Noonans Mayfair Ltd., London, UK), Auction 269, 8 March 2023, Lot 646; ex Spink & Son Ltd. (with old Spink coin envelope & coin tag stating price of 80 GBP).

The old Spink envelope and tag:

Is the handwriting on the Spink envelope the same as on the others? It looks a bit different to me. 

Counting Oceanus as an honorary member, that gives me a dozen denarii that are part of, or related to, Hadrian's Travel Series. Photos and descriptions of all the others can be found in the thread at https://www.numisforums.com/topic/754-a-new-hadrian-travel-series-denarius/ , so I won't repeat them here.  Instead, here's a "virtual tray" with small photos of all 12; you should be able to enlarge the tray by clicking on it. If not, I have also attached a pdf of the same virtual tray.

Please post any and all Hadrians that you'd like to share -- new or old, Imperial or Provincial, Travel Series or completely unrelated to that Series.

 

 

Table of Hadrian Travel Series Denarii.pdf 885.84 kB · 1 download

These really are excellent Travel Series denarii and I congratulate you on having such a discerning eye!

The Oceanus is a particularly good find especially with the level of detail on the reverse figure.

I think all the handwritten tags are from the same hand.  Even though the third tag appears to have slight differences from the first two, I'm convinced it's the same handwriting due to the similarity of the "head right" as "hd r" abbreviation:

The Pantheon is still the largest unsupported concrete dome in the world:

A tribute to the incredible brilliance of the anonymous Roman engineers who designed and built it.

The inside is no less impressive, but my personal belief is that it would have been much more interesting had the original Roman god and goddess statues NOT been replaced by later religious iconography:

5 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

This news might ruffle some feathers, the Eid Mar has been repatriated to Greece:

https://www.manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-returns-29-antiquities-to-greece/

So, fundamentally, it appears that there is convincing evidence that the Eid Mar aureus was illegally removed from Greece sometime in the past and thus is being repatriated back to the Greek government.

I can only assume that one or more of the ADA's informants provided this evidence and it was not cited specifically in the complaint against Beale.  

I wonder if we'll ever know the complete story about this coin's origins and shady provenance?

For certain, do not do anything else for now, until you've received a reply from the auction house.  NEVER simply send back a coin until the auction house informs you how they want it sent, insured, picked up, etc.  Otherwise you run the risk that they don't receive your return, and you end up being liable for the return method you chose.

Return costs will be their responsibility.  Until that issue has been satisfactorily settled, simply hold onto the coin.

If you don't receive a reply from them within 1 - 2 weeks, contact them again.

Clearly, you cannot legally keep the wrong coin unless the auction house somehow authorizes (in writing) this option.

BTW, if you've already paid for the coin, it's unlikely that you can keep the wrong coin until you receive the correct coin (or a refund), since these are two different transactions and the auction house's Terms and Conditions probably do not cover this problem.  Be sure to clarify with them whether you'll be getting a refund of your full payment including shipping and buyer's fees, or getting your original coin.

Also, once you've finalized both the return of the wrong coin, and the refund or shipping of the correct coin, you don't necessarily need to go out of your way to return it ASAP -- their own timeframe to ship a coin is probably a reasonable timeframe for you to return one. 😉

4 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

For the government to come to my house and demand the coin, the false provenance wouldn't be sufficient. I would want hard data proving that the coin in fact was stolen. I also certainly wouldn't trust the government to truly keep the coin in escrow until it was unequivocally proven as stolen property. 

This is precisely the issue that's been bothering me since I learned about the ADA's legal filing against Beale.  Until I learn more about the theft/stolen property evidence in this case, it's hard for me to shake off this discomfort.  Personally, I don't think that lack of provenance is reasonable evidence on which to base the accusation of theft.  Neither do I think that knowingly seeking a fraudulent provenance proves that the coins were stolen, although it definitely makes me suspicious about their legality.

DISCLAIMER: I generally want to believe that U.S. legal authorities are acting in good faith with sufficient facts and reason to believe their actions are justified.  I also do not have any sympathy for actual theft of antiquities even in countries whose laws I think are unreasonable.

14 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Yes, of course we already knew that the government alleged that the coins were stolen. Otherwise Beale wouldn't have been charged with the crimes he was charged with! As I'm sure you're aware, the government doesn't have to "prove" anything at this stage. That's the entire purpose of the trial. They simply have to show enough facts to convince a judge that there's "reasonable cause" sufficient to issue a search warrant. And the affidavit showing such facts doesn't get released to the public, as much as the public may be curious as to what it says.

So let me ask a simple question: can the ADA simply assert that the coins are stolen [Edit: based on lack of provenance], or does he need to have reasonable facts to support his assertion?  If it's the latter, than it would appear that those facts aren't being included in the filing but apparently have been presented to the judge.

51 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

I didn't notice that anyone else has posted the link, so here's another article that appeared today -- in addition to recounting the allegations we all already know, it's considerably more gossipy than the other article:  https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/worlds-most-expensive-coin-fake-provenance-roman-eid-mar-1234659762/ .

It appears that the "Old Guard" is taking the opportunity to get some revenge on this upstart, who came out of nowhere -- one might almost say, without provenance:

"Previously a member of the British Army, the 40-something-year-old Beale made a sudden entrance into the small world of coins dealers in London in 2009.

“He was like a bolt of lightning,” Christopher Martin, the Chairman of the British Numismatic Trade Association, told ARTnews. “He appeared and made his mark in the market that he wasn’t brought up in. Within a year, he was selling coins worth millions of pounds. That doesn’t happen, but that’s what happened with him. Where did he come from? Nobody really knew.”

At that time, Beale seemingly overnight built up a modern coin auction house with glossy catalogues and modern photography. Unlike his colleagues, he hadn’t come up in the business by way of family, nor had he gotten into the business as a young man, slowly but surely building a reputation as an expert, explained Martin. Other dealers watched in awe as he began trading coins in the millions, seemingly with no experience in the area. Somehow, he had access to highly valuable coins."

Almost like one of those Victorian novels about mysterious outsiders penetrating English society. The insinuations are rather clear, even if they may fall short of being defamatory.

Regarding Vecchi, the article is the first time I've read anything like the following: "The investigation into Vecchi is ongoing and he has not yet been charged."  Emphasis on "yet." Keeping in mind that artnews is usually a reliable source.

Note that this article claims that the Eid Mar aureus has actually been recovered and will be returned/repatriated.

1 minute ago, DonnaML said:

The "consignors" in this case seem to have been Beale and Vecchi themselves. Not independent third parties.

Yes, that's the way it appears to me too.  So if they paid themselves an advance against the hammer price, it wouldn't necessarily appear to be an arms-length transaction.

3 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Granted, I've never consigned an item, but my understanding from reading here and from watching my son consign tens of thousands in sport cards, that the auction house doesn't release funds to the seller until a few months after the sale.

It's common practice for very high-end coins and collections to receive an advance against the total hammer price, from the auction houses.  If I had been the consignor of either of these coins I would have required a non-refundable advance of at least 50% of the expected hammer price.

I would expect this to be the case for these two coins even if the coins were "owned" by one or more of Roma's principals.  But if either Vecchi or Beale received an advance from Roma for these coins, the situation likely becomes more complicated legally since any losses that Roma (the entity) suffers from this legal action might be recoverable from the principals who received the advances.

4 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

No, and I haven't said anything like that. I'm not sure where you got that from. This entire time I've been arguing that Beale knew the provenance was false as is stated in the affidavit. I think you've misread my posts in my attempt to explain the affidavit in plain language for sand and AmazedAncient.

 

Sorry, in the second part of my post ("I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000?") I should have specifically responded to Sand, not you.  I mixed two responses in one post and didn't clarify this.  Mea culpa.

But while I'll defer to DonnaML's opinion on this, "incorrect" and "false" certainly aren't equivalent, especially in a legal sense.

Just now, DonnaML said:

No. The small "i" informant referred to in the third line from the bottom is, in fact, Informant #2, who had informed Beale and Vecchi that the provenance was false (see @Hesiod's post below), and is referred to as such in order to avoid using male or female pronouns. And "when" in that sentence, as in "when the informant," = "after."

Thanks.  That's what I assumed as well.

47 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Then why did he try to pay Informant #2 to attest to the provenance after the informant had told Beale that the provenance was incorrect?

Informant #2 didn't tell Beale that the provenance was "incorrect" -- he told him that it was false:

If Beale believed the provenance wasn't false, why wouldn't he just reassert his professional opinion that it was true and ignore Informant #2's opinion?  Logically, the answer is that Beale knew the provenance was false and hoped that Informant #2 would sign the false provenance document or possibly even provide his own (false) signed provenance.

I really don't understand your interpretation of the ADA's filing.  Is your viewpoint on this filing that somehow Beale was duped into believing the false provenance, for which he had paid, and was only trying to get a true provenance for the coins by offering Informant #2 CHF 100,000?

5 minutes ago, sand said:

Perhaps Mr. Beale paid for the provenance, rather than paying for provenance research. However, theoretically this could be legitimate.

My post did not state that paying for a provenance can't be legitimate -- it obviously can be.  Rather, I was noting that there's a distinct difference between paying for provenance research vs. paying for the provenance itself, and Beale has already admitted to knowingly paying for a fraudulent provenance.  I hope that clarifies my post sufficiently.

15 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

1. Mr. Beale paid for provenance research.

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of the ADA's complaint is incorrect.  Here's the actual language:

The ADA is being precise in using the word "provenance" rather than the phrase "provenance research," which are two very different things.  Paying for a provenance to be created is what constitutes the fraud being alleged, and the fraud to which Mr. Beale admitted.  Beale paid for the creation of a false provenance.  

18 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I'm pretty sure, however, that if the country in question can provide contrary evidence disproving such certifications, or can prove that despite such certifications, a coin or artifact was, in fact, stolen -- for example, from a museum -- it can still assert a claim, depending on the applicable statute of limitations, even if the theft occurred and the item was exported from that country more than 10 years ago.

Here's the issue that still disturbs me about the ADA's filing: While the filing asserts that the two coins (Eid Mar aureus and Naxos tetradrachm) are "Stolen Property," this assertion appears to be based solely on information from the ADA's informants (mainly Informant #2) and is not supported in the filing by any factual information (e.g., "it appears the Eid Mar aureus was part of the looted Gaza Hoard" or something similar).  Nor is it factually supported by any entity claiming ownership of these two coins.  Rather, it seems that the ADA is asserting ownership of the coins by the countries from which the coins would have originated, mainly based on both coins' lack of provenance, therefore they must be stolen.

The fraudulent provenance is a different matter -- it has been admitted factually by Mr. Beale and verified independently by Informant #2 -- but it doesn't necessarily prove that the coins were stolen.  At best, it seems to support the conclusion that Mr. Beale can't prove these coins weren't stolen from their countries of origin.  This isn't the same as proving they actually were stolen.

So my concern is that any coin that lacks a provenance, especially high-value coins that would produce equally high-profile publicity for an ADA -- is fair game for a legal entity to assert that it's stolen ("You can't produce a verifiable provenance, can you?").  Am I the only one who has this concern?

It's possible that the ADA is withholding information proving that the coins were actually stolen, or factually supporting their ownership by entities other than Beale and Vecchi, but this seems unlikely.  Are there further legal explanations and subtleties about the coins' ownership that I'm missing here?

3 minutes ago, velarfricative said:

100,000 CHF is a lot of money, it's hard to imagine that embellishing a provenance would be worth that. In any case, he admitted to knowingly possessing and selling coins from the Gaza hoard, which are definitely looted.

But the complaint doesn't assert that these two coins were looted from the Gaza hoard, though -- at least not as far as I read the complaint.  So citing this prior history appears to be simply an attempt to cast aspersions on one of the individuals, rather than being specifically relevant to the case.

3 minutes ago, KenDorney said:

I'm having a tough time trying to figure out how they will prove the coin was 'stolen'.  They must have some sort of irrefutable provenance? 

I, too, have been having the same difficulty understanding this specific point ever since I read the ADA's filing over a week ago.

There are four Informants on whom the complaint relies, but none of these informants actually claims to own the coins in question or specify who the owner is.  Implicitly, the ownership thus seems to be the country of Greece for the Eid Mar aureus, and Italy for the Naxos tetradrachm.  But again, I'm not sure that this is legally correct.  Can theft and fraud be asserted in a criminal case without specifically stating from whom the theft occurred?  Can anyone clarify this issue?

My first step would be to contact the auction house and ask them for advice.  They'll certainly have been asked this question many times, and might have a preferred shipper, freight forwarder, etc. that they would suggest.