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

[Ricardo123]

56 minutes ago, Troyden said:

But this coin is not plausible,

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

[AussieCollector]

16 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

I would suggest that confuses evidence and proof. They are not the same.

I think anyone who has published before (I take it that you have) would know exactly how the media would treat conclusions presented like that. The guy even did an interview and didn’t express any doubt at all.

 

I agree the 2 minute grabs of what was no doubt a 30 minute + interview, where the reporter is actually doing most of the talking, doesn't reflect well on the authors in terms of how it is stated.

That said, he would have mentioned a lot of context to the statements shown, which weren't shown, which would have painted a very different picture. Again, media. Seriously. All they care about it headlines, and the best of us get tripped up by them.

7 hours ago, Briac said:

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

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.

[Troyden]

6 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

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

 

I believe this should go the other way. One has to prove that this coin was made in antiquity.

[Briac]

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%)
 

[Briac]

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.

[Briac]

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

 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Briac

[Filat]

On 1/6/2023 at 3:11 AM, Filat said:

авторы статьи  "Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian", скорее всего, не коллекционеры и плохо разбираются в вопросах подлинности монет. 

Quote: "Fig 6. Light microscope images of exposed upper areas on the obverse of the six coins.
???The two unquestionably genuine coins??? are at the top". 
 

for information:

A) GLAHM:29540 - CAST PRODUCT; 
B) GLAHM:29697 - CAST PRODUCT; 
C) GLAHM:29596 - CAST PRODUCT; 
D) GLAHM:29820 - CAST PRODUCT; 
E) GLAHM:29821 - CAST PRODUCT; 
F) GLAHM:40333 - CAST PRODUCT.
 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Filat

[DLTcoins]

6 hours ago, Briac said:

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

 

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?

 

[Ricardo123]

6 hours ago, Briac said:

all we can say is that the coins were buried for an indefinite period and exhumed at the beginning of the 18th century.

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 !

[Filat]

все литые римские "монеты" - это фуфло.
 

[Briac]

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

 

[Briac]

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 ...

[Briac]

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

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

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

Edited January 8, 2023 by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

[Filat]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:13 AM, Briac said:

On 1/8/2023 at 3:20 AM, Filat said:

все литые римские "монеты" - это фуфло .
 

все ваши комментарии - "фуфло"

, прежде чем говорить, вы должны прочитать научные публикации, такие как Д. Холлард 2001 "Sesterces coulés de Gordien III et Postume dans un trésor de l'Oise" или G. Aubin Les moules monétaires en terre cuite du IIIe siècle: chronologie et géographie

, вы также должны объяснить существование форм, подобных этой, из моей коллекции.

Ни "научная публикация", ни Ваша "форма из коллекции" для меня интереса не представляют.

Авторы также научной статьи → "Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian"   признали очевидную подделку подлинной монетой.
 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Filat

[Ricardo123]

38 minutes ago, Briac said:

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 ...

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  

 

 

[AussieCollector]

4 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.

 

Agree with these points.

Whether they were locally minted in 3rd century during the crisis, or whether they are forgeries in the 18th century is the question.

I don't subscribe to any conclusion about precisely who and why.

[AussieCollector]

1 hour ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

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

They need to do destructive testing, which won't rule in ancient, but can rule out modern.

[Briac]

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 

[Briac]

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?


 

[Edessa]

“They’ve gone full fantasy,” said Richard Abdy, the curator of Roman and iron age coins at the British Museum. 

Enough said.

 

 

[Filat]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:13 AM, Briac said:

On 1/8/2023 at 3:20 AM, Filat said:

все литые римские "монеты" - это фуфло .
 

все ваши комментарии - "фуфло"

напоминаю всем и каждому этот замечательный комментарий в этой теме:

Troyden said:
But this coin is not plausible, it's dubious to say the least. It looks like an inept forgery, as if someone with only a passing knowledge of Roman coinage made a fake to fool some rich sucker.
 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Filat

[Filat]

On 1/8/2023 at 12:44 AM, Filat said:

Quote: "Fig 6. Light microscope images of exposed upper areas on the obverse of the six coins.
???The two unquestionably genuine coins??? are at the top". 
 

for information:

A) GLAHM:29540 - CAST PRODUCT; 
B) GLAHM:29697 - CAST PRODUCT; 
C) GLAHM:29596 - CAST PRODUCT; 
D) GLAHM:29820 - CAST PRODUCT; 
E) GLAHM:29821 - CAST PRODUCT; 
F) GLAHM:40333 - CAST PRODUCT.
 

for information:
A) GLAHM:29540 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE;
B) GLAHM:29697 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE; 
C) GLAHM:29596 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE; 
D) GLAHM:29820 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE; 
E) GLAHM:29821 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE; 
F) GLAHM:40333 - CAST PRODUCT - FAKE.
 

Все шесть "монет" - подделки, включая и две первые "бесспорно подлинные монеты".
 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Filat