Sponsian? You gotta be kidding me... right?

[Tejas]

19 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Why would an overly-heavy gold coin circulate? I

Maybe for the same reason that the overly-heavy gold coins of the corpus of Ukrainian gold imitations show strong signs of circulation? 

[Tejas]

22 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Their authenticity relies on the deposits. For which there is no evidence.

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.

[John Conduitt]

1 minute 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.

It isn't me questioning it. This is common to most critiques of the study. Even the authors question it:

"We are aware of no published literature specifically on the analysis of earthen deposits on coins."
"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. "
 

[Briac]

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

[Briac]

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

[kirispupis]

Adding my two quadrans here.

After reading the original article, my belief is the authors have not proven that the coins are genuine. As they state themselves, there have been no studies analyzing deposits on coins. Without such studies, it's impossible to speculate whether their findings prove that these coins are genuine or not.

Where I'm alarmed is this statement in the paper.

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 [3, 5, 8] is clearly untenable.

As has already been stated, simply saying that something is true because you can't prove it otherwise is faulty logic. Second, by admissions of their own (the absence of any generic studies), they cannot state that the arguments of others are false.

IMHO, this is unprofessional for an academic paper. The above sentences appear aimed to create a sensation. They aren't bounded in academic reason and I believe they are the primary reason for attacks on the authors by other experts in the field.

As an aside, I would love for some ground-breaking work to cover investigating wear on coins. I suspect there's a lot of history attached to our own coins that we could uncover simply by putting them under a decent microscope and having literature available to explain what we are seeing.

For me, the most ground-breaking conclusion of this paper is that we simply don't have research available to draw any conclusions on its data. This is clearly an opening for future work.

Therefore, given that the data presented in the paper is interesting, but no conclusions possible due to the lack of comparable data, I'm inclined to continue to accept the conclusions of the leading numismatists, who label the coins as fakes.

[zadie]

 

[Tejas]

9 hours ago, Nick said:

Technically you are correct of course but I think the preponderance of evidence would make it essentially a dead issue at that point, assuming it was a relatively simple process (like, bury it for a year).  I’m really hoping someone will study this phenomenon (encrustations development) in greater depth.  

I agree, if a further study could show that these encrustations form on gold in a matter of days, weeks or months in the ground, this would undermine the conclusions of the paper. I don't think that an early 18th century forger from Transylvania (of all places) would go through the length of creating signs of wear and tear before burying gold coins, worth a fortune at the time in the ground for several years or decades in order to fool people who had no means of analysing earthen deposits anyway. 

I really hope that the controversy encourages another team of researchers to continue the technical investigation and to either confirm or disprove the findings of the current study.

[Tejas]

9 hours ago, Briac said:

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

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. 

[Briac]

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...

[Harry G]

Just chipping in as a complete non-expert in all this.

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I would guess that if the coins are genuine "ancient" coins, then Sponsianus was probably a rich citizen in a remote part of the empire, that for whatever reason, decided to proclaim himself as emperor. He struck a couple of high weight issues with his name, with a reverse of a republic denarius that he liked the look of, and gave them out as bribes or gifts to friends and officials (i.e. they're not coins - rather presentation pieces). He was probably murdered before he could continue his "reign".

Like I said, just a guess, with no evidence to back this up. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Harry G

[Briac]

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

[Briac]

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

[Briac]

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

Edited December 9, 2022 by Briac

[Filat]

это литая подделка .

[Filat]

что мы видим на концах зеленых 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

Edited January 4, 2023 by Filat

[John Conduitt]

4 minutes ago, Filat said:

что мы видим на концах зеленых 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
 

Even the authors say it is cast.

[Filat]

что мы видим на концах зеленых стрелок на аверсе шести монет , на картинке ниже? → см. Рис. 7. "Электронно-микроскопические изображения с большим увеличением ... областей на аверсе шести монет".  по ссылке:

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

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Quelqu’un pourrait-il aviser ce membre qu’il serait préférable qu’il rédige ses commentaires dans la langue que 99% des participants sur ce forum maîtrisent, c’est à dire l’ anglais ?

Tour de Babel

Edited January 5, 2023 by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

[Filat]

29 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Quelqu'un pourrait-il aviser ce membre qu'il serait préférable qu'il rédige ses commentaires dans la langue que 99% участников sur ce forum maîtrisent, c'est à dire l' anglais?

ответы на мои вопросы у Вас,    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, есть?
 

[CPK]

32 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Quelqu’un pourrait-il aviser ce membre qu’il serait préférable qu’il rédige ses commentaires dans la langue que 99% des participants sur ce forum maîtrisent, c’est à dire l’ anglais ?

Tour de Babel

I suspect this individual is only here for trolling purposes.

[Filat]

15 minutes ago, CPK said:

I suspect this individual is only here for trolling purposes.

на чем же конкретно основано это утверждение?
 

[CPK]

2 minutes ago, Filat said:

на чем же конкретно основано это утверждение?
 

Your activity here since joining. All your posts appear to be provocative baiting attempts without offering anything of worth or substance. Also posting everything in a language that, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix pointed out, 99% of Forum users do not understand.

If I am wrong then I sincerely apologize, but that is how it comes across.

[Filat]

14 minutes ago, CPK said:

Your activity here since joining. All your posts appear to be provocative baiting attempts without offering anything of worth or substance. Also posting everything in a language that, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix pointed out, 99% of Forum users do not understand.

If I am wrong then I sincerely apologize, but that is how it comes across.

Вы действительно ошибаетесь и позже Вы поймете → почему ошибаетесь.
 

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

50 minutes ago, Filat said:

ответы на мои вопросы у Вас,    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, есть?

jIyIntaHvIS, jIchopbe'chu'. 'ach targh Data'rup'a' neH? chut dIr je'taHvIS, HoSghajqu'mo'.