£4.00 reproduction hammered for £180!

[Roman Collector]

I debated which category to post this in -- general or Roman Empire. I opted for general because it illustrates a general principle: research a coin before buying. I came across this chicanery during the course of researching a sestertius of Faustina the Elder for an upcoming [spoiler alert, LOL!] installment of Faustina Friday. Sadly, whoever bought this coin for £180 from TimeLine Auctions in 2016 got taken.

It looks convincing, but there are some red flags here. It's grossly underweight at 16.29 g, which is a good 7 or 8 grams underweight. The British Museum specimen, for example, is 24.83 g; A specimen sold by Elsen weighs 24.23 g. There's no possibility that this coin is a dupondius misdescribed as a sestertius; the coin was not issued in the middle bronze denomination.

The most damning thing, however, is that it exactly matches this reproduction coin sold by Dorchester's Reproduction Coins and Medals for £4.00. Everything matches, down to the flan crack at 8:00 and die cud at 10:00 on the obverse to the distorted beaded border at 12:00 and 2:00 on the reverse.

Now, I wouldn't have even known about the Dorchester's fake had this listing at the repro company not come up on page 1 of a google search for "currus elephantorum." The description of the reproduction lists its diameter as 3.9 cm, but doesn't give a weight. Were I a betting man, I'd say it's 16.29 g.

Some poor soul got taken for a couple hundred bucks. I noted the coin was a fake in the comments section about the coin at acsearchinfo. I wonder if @SimonW knows of any legal recourse for this collector.

There's a lot of things "at fault" here:

Dorchester's for selling such a repro in the first place.
TimeLine for not recognizing the coin is underweight and suspicious and not examining it further (I suspect it bears evidence of casting).
The collector himself for not being skeptical of an EXTREMELY RARE coin that's underweight and UNDERPRICED (even at £180).

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Roman Collector

[John Conduitt]

22 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

There's a lot of things "at fault" here:

Dorchester's for selling such a repro in the first place.
TimeLine for not recognizing the coin is underweight and suspicious and not examining it further (I suspect it bears evidence of casting).
The collector himself for not being skeptical of an EXTREMELY RARE coin that's underweight and UNDERPRICED (even at £180).

 

...and is the example on Wildwinds, under RIC 1139/BMC 1433.

Edited December 14, 2022 by John Conduitt

[Roman Collector]

2 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

...and is the example on Wildwinds, under RIC 1139/BMC 1433.

Wildwinds cites the Timeline Auctions listing. 

[John Conduitt]

1 minute ago, Roman Collector said:

Wildwinds cites the Timeline Auctions listing. 

And TimeLine cites Wildwinds. Circular referencing, somehow.

[SimonW]

27 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

Some poor soul got taken for a couple hundred bucks. I noted the coin was a fake in the comments section about the coin at acsearchinfo. I wonder if @SimonW knows of any legal recourse for this collector.

Since this is clearly a cast forgery, the buyer shouldn't have any difficulties returning it to the auction house and getting a full refund.

[Roman Collector]

3 minutes ago, SimonW said:

Since this is clearly a cast forgery, the buyer shouldn't have any difficulties returning it to the auction house and getting a full refund.

I wonder if there's a way to notify the buyer. 

[ambr0zie]

That one would have tricked me without issues.

I don't understand the purpose of these objects (.... in fact I do.... ). I have nothing against forgeries made for study or museum replicas, but they need to be CLEARLY MARKED. I disagree even with selling an object like this as a "replica" because there is a big chance that the buyer would sell it as genuine.

Every time I see a similar subject I wonder if I have similar examples in my collection.

[SimonW]

37 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

I wonder if there's a way to notify the buyer.

Not directly. You would have to contact Timeline about this.

 

23 minutes ago, ambr0zie said:

Every time I see a similar subject I wonder if I have similar examples in my collection.

We probably all have. There are lots of old casts that are much more dangerous than this modern one.

[ominus1]

2 hours ago, ambr0zie said:

Every time I see a similar subject I wonder if I have similar examples in my collection.

...one HAS TOO....@Ambr0zie...wonder that is  ^^

Edited December 14, 2022 by ominus1

[Deinomenid]

5 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

And TimeLine cites Wildwinds. Circular referencing, somehow.

TimeLine owns Wildwinds.

Or claims to.

 

[DonnaML]

I know nothing about TimeLine's reputation with respect to ancient coins, but I would be extremely reluctant to purchase anything from them given their very poor reputation with respect to antiquities -- specifically, for being extremely careless (to give them the benefit of the doubt) and consistently selling large numbers of fake or misattributed (and/or unprovenanced) artifacts. If you want details, join  https://groups.io/g/AncientArtifacts and do a search for TimeLine. There are 609 results, the substantial majority of them negative. Be sure to watch out for their common "property of a Surrey gentleman" provenances!

Edited December 14, 2022 by DonnaML

[Deinomenid]

I won't buy coins from them. My "spidey senses" tingled when I saw their videos  a while ago of a faux Oxford professor type, tweeds,  half moon glasses, put-on posh accent promoting various wonders, and then  I read the reviews. Egad.

 

[robinjojo]

I can see how the OP coin can be deceptive, especially for newcomers, but the mushy detail, plus that really weird curve in the reverse border bead line, along with the really low weight are giveaways indicating a fake.

Here's what appears to be a cast "dupondius" of Germanicus that I've owned for many years.  The weight is 12.96 grams, well below standard of 15-16 grams.  Mushy detail, where it just melts away in places, such as the right leg and face on the reverse and on the chariot on the obverse, and raised points or blobs of metal, in the fields, , are  giveaways, as well as some filing on the edge and what seems to be a casting seam showing in spots.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by robinjojo

[John Conduitt]

34 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

I know nothing about TimeLine's reputation with respect to ancient coins, but I would be extremely reluctant to purchase anything from them given their very poor reputation with respect to antiquities -- specifically, for being extremely careless (to give them the benefit of the doubt) and consistently selling large numbers of fake or misattributed (and/or unprovenanced) artifacts. If you want details, join  https://groups.io/g/AncientArtifacts and do a search for TimeLine. There are 609 results, the substantial majority of them negative. Be sure to watch out for their common "property of a Surrey gentleman" provenances!

Yes this quote seems apt: "Timeline Auctions is represented as an antique seller on many sites on the internet. Other sellers see their pages as a reference. That would be perfectly fine if they did their job carefully. They don't, and so the nonsense they write spreads."

[SimonW]

8 hours ago, Deinomenid said:

TimeLine owns Wildwinds.

I thought Dane Kurth (also known from Helvetica's RIC lists) owned it, but I think you are right. According to Timeline's website ("About us"), it belongs to Timeline and Dane is curating it.