Ancient technique or modern engraving (fraud)?

[Hrefn]

Let me preface my post by stating I am not labeling any coin depicted in this post as clearly or even likely false, nor am I questioning the probity of anyone displaying, selling, or discussing any coins mentioned.  I am trying to educate myself by soliciting the wisdom of other collectors on this board.  Coins depicted are not all my coins, and I am liberally borrowing the images from others in the interest of education.

The following coin appeared at auction.  It is a solidus of slightly unusual style which I find curious and attractive.  

However, the engraving on the reverse die made me hesitate.  The possibly problematic feature is most notable here in the portions of CONOB where the curves of the letters were engraved with multiple straight cuts of the burin.  Once you see it, it is apparent in other portions of the reverse epigraphy as well, especially the ORIA of VICTORIA.   Curiously, I see no evidence of the same technique on the obverse.

The officina letter delta looks very different from the V of VICTORIA on the opposite side of the base of the cross.  This could be an argument for authenticity, since the officina letters may sometimes have been inscribed on the dies later and by a different hand, a detail unlikely to be mimicked by a forger.  

Here are the reverses of a few other solidi of Heraclius from my collection.  I think there is a difference in the reverse die engraving.  But is this difference the expected variation on hand-cut dies from different engravers, or something more? There is a very slight suggestion of similar technique in the cutting of the C and B of CONOB on the coin on the left, below.  The celator of the middle coin preferred a triangular burin to form the reverse lettering, while the third used a round punch to form the common blob-style letters we see on many coins of this era.  These coins lack, for the most part, the multiple cuts used to form the rounded parts of the letters on the coin in question, above.  

Here is the obverse of the above 3 coins.  

Here are a few more reverses of Heraclian gold coins.  Again, none of that problematic burin work on the curved portions of the lettering.  The lettering is much more crisp and clean, even on the tremissis struck by a worn die.   

My question is whether the multiple cuts in the curved letters indicates modern die machining.  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/thumbnails.php?album=16 discusses this. I think the modern machining is a bit different.  Sorry for the small picture, but it is sufficient to show the regularity and parallel orientation of the machine engraving.  This coin of which this is an excerpt is believed to be a forgery.

So. Is this reverse die on our original coin just poorly finished work by an apprentice at the Constantinople mint?  (Not to even mention the lopsided cross on the reverse!  How would that get past quality control?)

The distinctive style of the obverse prompted a memory, and behold! The coin type is illustrated in Harlan Berk’s book on Roman Gold Coins of the Medieval World as number 124.

Berk’s coin is not the same specimen, but it is the same obverse die.  There is a tiny die break between the cross on Heraclius Constantine’s crown, and the R of his name;  and another from the C of Constantine to the rim, on both coins.  The reverse dies are extremely similar but not identical.  So if Berk’s coin is good, the original coin of this post is probably good.  The contrapositive of that conclusion is also suggested.  

If the original coin is good, then the engraving style of its reverse is a normal variation, and not a reason to worry.  

The Berk coin sold in a Gemini auction in 2005 for $2500.  The die breaks on the obverse are more perceptible than in Berk’s work.   See below, from ACS search.   The odd burin work seems absent on this coin.  

 

Coins of unusual style may be the product of an unusually skilled, or inept, celator.   Sometimes it is a clue to the coin being false.  In this case, the odd engraving style of the reverse lettering gave me some concern, but on balance I think the original coin is fine.  The obverse was done by a master, and the reverse by a noob.  

Your opinions on the matter respectfully solicited.  And feel free to post coins which gave you concern about their authenticity, and how you resolved the matter, if you did!

 

 

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Hrefn said:

The possibly problematic feature is most notable here in the portions of CONOB where the curves of the letters were engraved with multiple straight cuts of the burin.

I am no expert in fakes!

The straight cuts on the curves of the letters on Byzantine coins concerned me for a long time. After a website suggested these were signs of modern machining, I stayed away from such coins, likely missing a few good purchases. I kept observing and noted that such cuts are very common on certainly authentic coins. Below is one of my such examples (also on reverse only).

I do not dismiss such coins for now unless there are other concerns (I may be wrong).

Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG. Auction 100. 29/05/2017

[Hrefn]

57 minutes ago, Rand said:

The straight cuts on the curves of the letters on Byzantine coins concerned me for a long time. After a website suggested these were signs of modern machining, I stayed away from such coins, likely missing a few good purchases. I kept observing and noted that such cuts are very common on certainly authentic coins. Below is one of my such examples (also on reverse only).

I do not dismiss such coins for now unless there are other concerns (I may be wrong).

That is a lovely Ostrogothic solidus, @Rand.  I certainly do not see any problem with it.  The celator favored the triangular burin.  You can see in the  middle of the M in COMOB, the two acute triangles used to make the center of the letter taper to a point as they approach one another, and almost touch.   I do not believe a machine cut die could imitate such finesse.  

Careful examination of some of my other coins reveals a few have similar straight cuts;  ditto coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection which are as certain to be genuine as we can reasonably expect.  Unless the cuts are highly parallel, monotonous, and regular, I believe they are not prima facie evidence of forgery, but I hope other experienced collectors will offer their thoughts and speculations.