My First Pacatianus the Usurper c. 248 A.D....from eBay...So Maybe...

[Marsyas Mike]

13 minutes ago, Claudius_Gothicus said:

As @Marsyas Mike said above, I have been suspicious of this coin since the moment I saw it, and I privately voiced with him my concerns about it. He has encouraged me to post them publicly, and I shall do so in hope that others can weigh in with their opinions and add something to the discussion. I will abstain from definitely condemning the coin, but I will provide all the evidence I found that makes me doubt it's genuine - I will only focus on coin itself, since I do not think that we should dismiss something as fake by default just because it came from a dubious source; Pacatian is rare, but not that rare, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one authentic coin of his had been sold for cheap in the past due to being misdescribed.

Now, back to the coin:

1) Firstly, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said, several Becker forgeries of these coins are known, and I'm pretty sure that the Hirsch example is an obverse die match to one, though it's hard to tell; while I haven't found an obverse die match to @Marsyas Mike's example, the fact that the Hirsch specimen is a reverse die match to the one in this thread casts serious doubts on its authenticity by default.

2) While the appearance of a previously unrecorded reverse type for Pacatian wouldn't be too strange, the fact that it features an officina letter in the exergue while no other coin of his has one is quite odd; what's even stranger is the fact that, in this time period, officina letters on Roman Imperial coinage had just been introduced by Philip I, and what is more, they were represented by either Greek letters or Roman numerals. To see Roman letters being used to indicate an officina we have to wait for the joint reign of Valerian I and Gallienus; moreover, the letter cannot have been copied from the Viminacium provincials, either, since they never used markings for the officinae, so unless the engraver was a time traveller...

3) Finally, there are several technical and stylistical factors that make me doubt the authenticity of this coin, and I will post some authentic examples to illustrate my points: firstly, the dotted border on @Marsyas Mike's example not only differs in diametre between the obverse and the reverse, but is also very prominent and with large beads, while on authentic examples it's thinner and the beads are considerably less round.

The letters are also noticeably different, since on authentic coins the obverse legend is always cluttered, with very little space between the letters, which in turn are also often blundered (notably the letter A, which on authentic examples usually lacks the central bar and looks more like a Greek Delta) and varying in size, which is completely different from the clear and tidy obverse legend used on @Marsyas Mike's coin.

Finally, the portrait itself feels slightly off to me, since the proportions of its various features don't match up perfectly, at least to me, with those of the authentic coins, whose portraits are very consistent in style; by contrast, the portrait of @Marsyas Mike's coin reminds me much more of an emperor like Valerian.

Let me know what you think!

Very well argued and observed!  Thank you for posting this - and thanks too for PM'ing me at first with your reservations.  

The one aspect of these observations I'm somewhat iffy on is the portrait - the Pacatians I've seen have a fairly wide array of styles and features, with mine not seeming (to me) all that out of line with others.  Here are a few I pulled off acsearch, mine on top (the first two auctions are CNG) What strikes me is the short (for a Roman) nose, the long upper lip, and the deep-set eyes, small knobby chin - which all seem a common feature for many of the ones I'm seeing online:  

Variations for sure, but the nose-upper lip-eye-chin have a lot in common.  As @Claudius_Gothicus notes what the group above reminds me of most are the issues of Valerian - whereas Gordian and Philip tend to have distinctive, easily-identified portraits, Valerian's "look" wobbles all over the place.  Some of those Pacatians above look about 60, others (bottom) about 28!  But I don't know - judging artwork (portraits) is a subjective thing.  And of course getting the portrait right doesn't mean it still isn't a fake, alas.  

Again, thank you @Claudius_Gothicus for taking the trouble to analyze this coin.

 

 

 

 

[JeandAcre]

Thanks for posting these examples, @Marsyas Mike, in the context of issues invoving the portrait.

Regarding the range of variation in the portraits, we need to give due credit to the still-unusual circumstances of the mintage.  For context, earlier posts from esteemed colleagues (you know who you are) have emphasized phenomena such as the resemblance of Vespasian to Nero, in Vespasian's earlier provincial issues.  ...Vespasian had already returned to Rome, leaving Titus to prosecute the campaign against the (ostensibly) First Judean Revolt; what was a cellator in Antioch or Alexandria to do?  I have to suspect that in the context of Pacatianus, a usurpation, likely instigated by the Danubian legions --early even for the 'anarchy' of the 3rd century CE-- would have necessitated a correspondingly marked level of improvisation in the coins, both at the level of die engraving and composition.  Relative to Vespasian, problems attendant to mere geography might summarily have been replaced by a general, on or near the Danubian frontier, suddenly being tapped by his legion to enter the Roman equivalent of "American Idol."  (Disclaimer: Nope, no tv; never watched it; never will, until someone pays me enough.)

Regarding the latter, the examples you posted confirm where I was going, all the way back to the apparent proto-Gallienan silver wash.  Here's the page from the humble Wildwinds site, with several other examples of the same denomination.  Starting with the example at the top of the page, a good number of them have the same kind of silver wash.  Often enough with most of it worn off.

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/pacatian/i.html

Conspicuous among them are the ones involving a silver wash over bronze, rather than the underlying tin alloy common to the nadir of Gallienus' later coinage. 

To my eyes, this suggests an earlier, underdocumented transitional phase in the more general debasement of official issues over the rest of the period.  Pacatianus' issues suggest a chronological mirror image to the late ones of Gallienus.  (As Frank Zappa might say, 'Are you with me on this, people?')  It's worth emphasizing that from the end of the 3rd c. CE, folli of the Tetrarchy, and issues of the Constantinians, were often struck on silver-washed bronze.  Relative to the tin of Gallienus, I like to think that, at the lower end of the denominational spectrum, this gets to be another demonstration of the ongoing reforms of the coinage (and, on a good day, maybe even the underlying economy) under Diocletian and Constantine I.  It's easy to speculate that Pacatianus' coinage both anticipates the debasement of Gallienus, and provides precedent for the discrete level of recovery that begins with Diocletian.

...Back to the future (as in, now): if someone was going to fake an antoninianus of Pacatianus, why would they do so on a flan that was other than a silver content common to official issues of the period?  Same with the level, and distribution of the wear.  In the case of any worn coin, of any period, if you get one with evenly distributed wear, congratulations; it's a good day.  And even if the obverse legend involves tooling (which I feel no obligation to believe), That kinda sorta implies that it was a genuine coin in the first place.  ...As I like to say, mixing cliches instead of metaphors, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by JeandAcre

[Marsyas Mike]

2 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Thanks for posting these examples, @Marsyas Mike, in the context of issues invoving the portrait.

Regarding the range of variation in the portraits, we need to give due credit to the still-unusual circumstances of the mintage.  For context, earlier posts from esteemed colleagues (you know who you are) have emphasized phenomena such as the resemblance of Vespasian to Nero, in Vespasian's earlier provincial issues.  ...Vespasian had already returned to Rome, leaving Titus to prosecute the campaign against the (ostensibly) First Judean Revolt; what was a cellator in Antioch or Alexandria to do?  I have to suspect that in the context of Pacatianus, a usurpation, likely instigated by the Danubian legions --early even for the 'anarchy' of the 3rd century CE-- would have necessitated a correspondingly marked level of improvisation in the coins, both at the level of die engraving and composition.  Relative to Vespasian, problems attendant to mere geography might summarily have been replaced by a general, on or near the Danubian frontier, suddenly being tapped by his legion to enter the Roman equivalent of "American Idol."  (Disclaimer: Nope, no tv; never watched it; never will, until someone pays me enough.)

Regarding the latter, the examples you posted confirm where I was going, all the way back to the apparent proto-Gallienan silver wash.  Here's the page from the humble Wildwinds site, with several other examples of the same denomination.  Starting with the example at the top of the page, a good number of them have the same kind of silver wash.  Often enough with most of it worn off.

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/pacatian/i.html

Conspicuous among them are the ones involving a silver wash over bronze, rather than the underlying tin alloy common to the nadir of Gallienus' later coinage. 

To my eyes, this suggests an earlier, underdocumented transitional phase in the more general debasement of official issues over the rest of the period.  Pacatianus' issues suggest a chronological mirror image to the late ones of Gallienus.  (As Frank Zappa might say, 'Are you with me on this, people?')  It's worth emphasizing that from the end of the 3rd c. CE, folli of the Tetrarchy, and issues of the Constantinians, were often struck on silver-washed bronze.  Relative to the tin of Gallienus, I like to think that, at the lower end of the denominational spectrum, this gets to be another demonstration of the ongoing reforms of the coinage (and, on a good day, maybe even the underlying economy) under Diocletian and Constantine I.  It's easy to speculate that Pacatianus' coinage both anticipates the debasement of Gallienus, and provides precedent for the discrete level of recovery that begins with Diocletian.

...Back to the future (as in, now): if someone was going to fake an antoninianus of Pacatianus, why would they do so on a flan that was other than a silver content common to official issues of the period?  Same with the level, and distribution of the wear.  In the case of any worn coin, of any period, if you get one with evenly distributed wear, congratulations; it's a good day.  And even if the obverse legend involves tooling (which I feel no obligation to believe), That kinda sorta implies that it was a genuine coin in the first place.  ...As I like to say, mixing cliches instead of metaphors, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

 

Thank you for that thorough and thoughtful analysis.  

Among the many fine points you bring up, you do hit on something I've been pondering for years, not only about this coin, but in general - if you are a counterfeiter of ancient coins, why would you make one extra-cruddy?  This is why I enjoy looking at Becker's forgeries - he was really good - in a way that is not easily done, he managed to get the look of ancient portraiture and lettering.  However, he was an artist, and putting such artistry on a lousy canvas (so to speak) was hard for him to do, apparently.  Which is why Becker's coins to me almost always look implausibly minty fresh.  

More contemporary fakes tend to be too nice too - take a look at Marc Antony galley denarii on acsearch.  I'm no expert, but these big auction houses seem to be selling scads of minty fresh Marc Antonys that look as phony as three dollar bills to me.  No, I'm no expert, but something like this just doesn't look right:

Emporium Hamburg, with apologies, but the boat side looks pressed to me, not struck.  

Which is why I like what few rarities that come my way to be on the ugly side.  Back when I was collecting modern countermarks, I was very enthusiastic about the Azores crowned G.P countermarks of 1887, which can be found on a fascinating array of coins.  Unfortunately for every genuine example there are 50 fakes. Which is why I preferred the ones I got to be holed, or worn almost smooth.  It's no guarantee, but so many of the fake Azores are too good to be true.  

As for the Pacatian, if mine is a die-match to the Hirsch example (which I think is a safe bet), then it is obvious that these were struck, not cast, thanks to the dramatic doubling of the obverse on the Hirsch.  Mine is too thin to see a casting seam if there was one, but I think mine was struck too.  And why strike only two (in ten years - the Hirsch auction was in 2014) with such wildly-differing appearance in terms of the flan and strike?  Some very patient, crafty counterfeiting work for sure.  

Your observations on the general economic situation of those days are really thought-provoking - I hope somebody digs up a marble inscription from the mint of Viminacium (or wherever) with a list of Pacatian's mint officials, assigned to Officinae, with formulae on how to prepare the flans.  Also, with a few dies found in a broken pot buried under the floor.  Until then...

Again, thank you.  

P. S.  I did find two Pacatians on the Forgery Network.  Here's one with Barry Murphy's comments - the obverse does look a lot like mine (uh oh):

Identified by CFDL including Barry Murphy and Others. "Most telling is the flan of this coin, it isn't even close to an authentic flan. Pacatians never ever come on perfectly round flans and almost always have edge irregularities. This coin is also not a barbarous imitation of a Pacatian. Seldom if ever do you find barbarous imitations of coins issued by short-lived usurpers. Their coins were almost always recalled and probably devalued, it would not have made much sense to copy a coin you couldn't spend. This coin is clearly cast, but cast from what?". See above link for more information

https://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=dp~x~pBToaYZM=

 

 

 

 

 

[JayAg47]

Given you bought the coin for $50 listed as Gordian III, I assume the seller did not intend to swindle you for a fake Pacatian. Maybe the seller got it from some other place that did not deal with ancient coins, or bought as a unattributed group lot form a deceased estate. My main concern regarding the coin is the clear visibility of the name Pacatian in contrast to other elements that show wear. Maybe send it to David Sears or grading services. I know slabbing doesn't prove authenticity, but at least you'd have more expert eyes on the coin. And if genuine, this is definitely the type of ancient coin I'd prefer to see in a slab. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by JayAg47

[Marsyas Mike]

20 minutes ago, JayAg47 said:

Given you bought the coin for $50 listed as Gordian III, I assume the seller did not intend to swindle you for a fake Pacatian. Maybe the seller got it from some other place that did not deal with ancient coins, or bought as a unattributed group lot form a deceased estate. My main concern regarding the coin is the clear visibility of the name Pacatian in contrast to other elements that show wear. Maybe send it to David Sears or grading services. I know slabbing doesn't prove authenticity, but at least you'd have more expert eyes on the coin. And if genuine, this is definitely the type of ancient coin I'd prefer to see in a slab. 

The seller has a lot of ancients for sale, some of them incorrectly described, but most if not all of them look genuine to me.  Most are very common, fairly low grade AEs with some silver, both Greek and Roman.  Some of the auctions are lots.  It's a USA seller, but it looks as if he might have a European source (rather than a USA collector's estate sale) - but I'm guessing, based on the quantities involved and the missing or wrong attributions.  I find these kinds of sellers to be a lot of fun to look through - to be sure, most of the stuff isn't worth a bid, but sometimes good stuff comes up.   

Some of the other auctions are tempting, but they are all priced very high for what they are ($70 for a Gordian antoninianus in the condition the Pacatianus is in gives you some idea!).  He does take offers though, which is how I got it for $50.  

I've never sent off anything for verification, but this one might be worth finding out about, good or bad!  

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I'm certainly rooting for it to be authentic, but while I don't consider myself an expert, after 30 years of collecting I'm kind of in the fake camp. 

The good: if it is real, what a coup. Also, if fake, you're not out much.  Heck, I don't know what fakes go for.  The fake might even be worth 50 bucks.

 

[JeandAcre]

@Marsyas Mike, I'm only quoting the operant part of your last post --with cordial thanks for your vote of confidence regarding my last one.  (I collected Roman of this period, as a kid, only long enough to pick up some basics of the numismatic vocabulary, and a correspondingly general appreciation of the history.  ...Granted, I was a lot smarter back then!  :<} ) 

"P. S.  I did find two Pacatians on the Forgery Network.  Here's one with Barry Murphy's comments - the obverse does look a lot like mine (uh oh):

Identified by CFDL including Barry Murphy and Others. "Most telling is the flan of this coin, it isn't even close to an authentic flan. Pacatians never ever come on perfectly round flans and almost always have edge irregularities. This coin is also not a barbarous imitation of a Pacatian. Seldom if ever do you find barbarous imitations of coins issued by short-lived usurpers. Their coins were almost always recalled and probably devalued, it would not have made much sense to copy a coin you couldn't spend. This coin is clearly cast, but cast from what?". See above link for more information https://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=dp~x~pBToaYZM= "

What  leaps out at me first is that your example isn't on the kind of perfectly round flan that Murphy is setting off the alarm bells about.  It's more ovoid, consonantly with that many other examples that we've been looking at online over the last (fun, No, Not just vicariously) couple of days.  To wallow in the obvious (right, never stopped me before), you can read Murphy's comments as having been predicated on an original issue of the same type.

Please --no, really, Please-- consider the source, but I for one am still seeing nothing that summarily rules out the possibility that you have a realie here.

In the interests of full disclosure, knock on wood --and find some real wood!

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by JeandAcre

[Marsyas Mike]

9 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

Please --no, really, Please-- consider the source, but I for one am still seeing nothing that summarily rules out the possibility that you have a realie here.

Oh, do I wish it is a "realie" (my new favorite word).  The Forgery Network example looks cast, mushy to me.  

Thanks again for your comments.  

[Marsyas Mike]

11 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

I'm certainly rooting for it to be authentic, but while I don't consider myself an expert, after 30 years of collecting I'm kind of in the fake camp. 

The good: if it is real, what a coup. Also, if fake, you're not out much.  Heck, I don't know what fakes go for.  The fake might even be worth 50 bucks.

 

It occurred to me last night that the discussion in this thread alone might give this thing, even a fake, a "patina of interest" that could elevate it to the mid-two figures!

How's that for wishful thinking!

Please note that I have copyrighted "patina of interest" - a new category for iffy, probably fake, and eBay-scrounged coins.  

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I'm hoping that it will be real.

[maridvnvm]

I am not familiar with the type but I am familiar with dubious sellers and their methods. I have looked through the other listings of this seller and they alone give me cause for concern. The same seller is selling a matching cast fake to a known Faustina II (selling it as Faustina I), a known fake of a sestertius of Clodius Albinus (selling as Marcus Aurelius) amongst many other poor fakes. These worry me immensely.

I hope that it it real but I stronly fear that it is a fake.

[Coinmaster]

Interesting coin and topic!

The beads differs in size on both sides. I’d say it’s genuine. But on the other hand, the clear letters of the name on the obverse are indeed suspicious. However, perhaps not impossible.

So.., it’s 50/50!

You could ask Ilya Prokopof.

At least, even if it’s fake, this interesting coin is worth 50,- and surely a nice birthday present, congrats!

[Heliodromus]

2 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

I have looked through the other listings of this seller and they alone give me cause for concern.

Yes - looking at his other sales (incl. shiny brass "360 BC" Persian swords for $225 OBO "with provenance") there's no way he's not deliberately selling fakes.

Of course anything is possible, and a real Pacatanius could have fallen into the hands of a professional fake seller, who then had the misfortune to misidentify it, just as he also has the misfortune to not recognize his (fake) Clodius Albinus (which doesn't even fit into it's fake slab) ...

Never say never on eBay, but unfortunately this doesn't look good.

 

 

[Marsyas Mike]

52 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

Yes - looking at his other sales (incl. shiny brass "360 BC" Persian swords for $225 OBO "with provenance") there's no way he's not deliberately selling fakes.

Of course anything is possible, and a real Pacatanius could have fallen into the hands of a professional fake seller, who then had the misfortune to misidentify it, just as he also has the misfortune to not recognize his (fake) Clodius Albinus (which doesn't even fit into it's fake slab) ...

Never say never on eBay, but unfortunately this doesn't look good.

 

 

Yes, that Persian sword is a fake.  But the many ancient coins he's listing look okay, if overpriced.  

I saw that Albinus...if fake, it is not (to me) an obvious fake.  And to be fair, that is really not a "fake slab" - it is just a slab-like holder.  There's no grading/authentic-izing information on it.   My "Pacatianus" came in a similar slab with Gordian identification taped to the outside, which is hardly an effort to fake NCG plastic.  

[Heliodromus]

16 minutes ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Yes, that Persian sword is a fake.  But the many ancient coins he's listing look okay, if overpriced.  

I can't speak to most of them since they are not my collecting area, although I don't get the warm fuzzies from them or the company they keep!

Another coin that appears fake is the "slabbed" Constantine London VLPP. At best it's an imitation.

[maridvnvm]

The Clodius Albinus matches  a fake on the Forvm database.  I have spotted lots of fakes in his silvers. Most of the bronze groups look legitimate but low grade junkers. 

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Mike, I took the liberty of contacting a French guy specialist in Pacatian’s coinage and showed him the pictures of your coin. Here is his reply (translated from French), and also a link to an interesting old thread on Forvm (thimar11 is in fact Thibault) plus a link to his website.

« There does indeed seem to be an obverse die connection, but the problem is that for me both coins are undoubtedly modern forgeries. The style is not at all that of Pacatien's coins, and the reverse of sale 298 does not exist for this emperor. The forger went so far as to create an overprint on a coin of Philip, a practice not found on any “official” Pacatian Antoniniani. Sorry PS: maybe you can ask Curtis Clay's opinion, but for me there is no doubt. »

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=46065.msg289328#msg289328

 

http://marchal.thibaut.free.fr/e_index.htm
 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

[Marsyas Mike]

3 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Mike, I took the liberty of contacting a French guy specialist in Pacatian’s coinage and showed him the pictures of your coin. Here is his reply (translated from French), and also a link to an interesting old thread on Forvm plus a link to his website.

« There does indeed seem to be an obverse die connection, but the problem is that for me both coins are undoubtedly modern forgeries. The style is not at all that of Pacatien's coins, and the reverse of sale 298 does not exist for this emperor. The forger went so far as to create an overprint on a coin of Philip, a practice not found on any “official” Pacatian Antoniniani. Sorry PS: maybe you can ask Curtis Clay's opinion, but for me there is no doubt. »

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=46065.msg289328#msg289328

 

http://marchal.thibaut.free.fr/e_index.htm
 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for looking into this - this is good to know, if not what I wanted to hear!   

Although I'm not an expert, I am still somewhat puzzled by the "style" argument, especially for the portrait.  The variations I've seen are numerous - like I said before, like Valerian, who never really has a firmed up "look" the way, say, Philip I does.  My Pacatian portrait (and the Hirsch) just doesn't look like an outlier.  "Art criticism" opinion only!

So the Hirsch is overstruck on a Philip?  I hadn't seen that - it looked double-struck to me, rather than a strike-over.  But now that I look more carefully - yep, that's Philip's chin, and furthermore, that's PHILIPP... faintly in the field.  Interesting!  I feel kind of dumb for not noticing that. 

Thanks for sending that FORVM link - I had not seen it.     

[John Conduitt]

On 12/7/2023 at 6:24 PM, Claudius_Gothicus said:

As @Marsyas Mike said above, I have been suspicious of this coin since the moment I saw it, and I privately voiced with him my concerns about it. He has encouraged me to post them publicly, and I shall do so in hope that others can weigh in with their opinions and add something to the discussion. I will abstain from definitely condemning the coin, but I will provide all the evidence I found that makes me doubt it's genuine - I will only focus on coin itself, since I do not think that we should dismiss something as fake by default just because it came from a dubious source; Pacatian is rare, but not that rare, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one authentic coin of his had been sold for cheap in the past due to being misdescribed.

Now, back to the coin:

1) Firstly, as @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said, several Becker forgeries of these coins are known, and I'm pretty sure that the Hirsch example is an obverse die match to one, though it's hard to tell; while I haven't found an obverse die match to @Marsyas Mike's example, the fact that the Hirsch specimen is a reverse die match to the one in this thread casts serious doubts on its authenticity by default.

2) While the appearance of a previously unrecorded reverse type for Pacatian wouldn't be too strange, the fact that it features an officina letter in the exergue while no other coin of his has one is quite odd; what's even stranger is the fact that, in this time period, officina letters on Roman Imperial coinage had just been introduced by Philip I, and what is more, they were represented by either Greek letters or Roman numerals. To see Roman letters being used to indicate an officina we have to wait for the joint reign of Valerian I and Gallienus; moreover, the letter cannot have been copied from the Viminacium provincials, either, since they never used markings for the officinae, so unless the engraver was a time traveller...

3) Finally, there are several technical and stylistical factors that make me doubt the authenticity of this coin, and I will post some authentic examples to illustrate my points: firstly, the dotted border on @Marsyas Mike's example not only differs in diametre between the obverse and the reverse, but is also very prominent and with large beads, while on authentic examples it's thinner and the beads are considerably less round.

The letters are also noticeably different, since on authentic coins the obverse legend is always cluttered, with very little space between the letters, which in turn are also often blundered (notably the letter A, which on authentic examples usually lacks the central bar and looks more like a Greek Delta) and varying in size, which is completely different from the clear and tidy obverse legend used on @Marsyas Mike's coin.

Finally, the portrait itself feels slightly off to me, since the proportions of its various features don't match up perfectly, at least to me, with those of the authentic coins, whose portraits are very consistent in style; by contrast, the portrait of @Marsyas Mike's coin reminds me much more of an emperor like Valerian.

Let me know what you think!

These are very good points. It's hard to explain the officina letter or the different beading. Isn't it a double die match for the Hirsch? The legend is identical, even where it is stronger and weaker.

The Faustina I/II, Vespasian, Julia Mamea (sic) and Elagabalus look like they might be obvious fakes if the photos were better.

[Heliodromus]

45 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

The forger went so far as to create an overprint on a coin of Philip, a practice not found on any “official” Pacatian Antoniniani.

I was searching for examples of Becker's Pacatian, and found this specimen which interestingly was overstruck on a denarius.

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=311509#

I didn't realize Becker did this - I'd only heard of his later "white metal" sets.

This Becker die doesn't match the Hirsh/Mike coins, but it also doesn't match the Elsen Becker fake that @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix posted earlier, so evidentially there are multiple Becker Pacatanian dies out there.

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

There is another one which just sold in September 2023 by Hirsch (again !) that is consider by Thibault as a modern fake. Check the picture here:

Sold for 5,500 euros…

[Heliodromus]

On 12/9/2023 at 12:49 PM, John Conduitt said:

These are very good points. It's hard to explain the officina letter or the different beading. Isn't it a double die match for the Hirsch? The legend is identical, even where it is stronger and weaker.

Is it a double die match? I tend to agree, but the points on his radiate crown don't seem to align with the legend in the same way.

The legend being strong/weak in same areas does seem very suspicious. There also *seems* to be an outline below Pacatian's bust on Mike's coin that matches the base of Philip's bust on the Hirsch coin. Or, is that the base of Pacatian's own bust ?

Maybe Mike's coin was copied and reworked from the Hirsch one ?

I adjusted the color a bit below to make it look more silvery like the seller's photo.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Marsyas Mike]

19 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Is it a double die match? I tend to agree, but the points on his radiate crown don't seem to align with the legend in the same way.

The legend being strong/weak in same areas does seem very suspicious. There also *seems* to be an outline below Pacatian's bust on Mike's coin that matches the base of Philip's bust on the Hirsch coin. Or, is that the base of Pacatian's own bust ?

Maybe Mike's coin was copied and reworked from the Hirsch one ?

I adjusted the color a bit below to make it look more silvery like the seller's photo.

Gee, I wish you'd do all my coin photography - that color adjustment is an improvement in terms of seeing detail.   That tiny pimple at 10/11 o'clock obverse is interesting - I hadn't noticed it before.  I had noticed the lumpy truncation/drapery area at the bottom of the bust, but have no idea what it means.  

If these are fake, they don't seem to be cast (as I've said before) - especially the Hirsch with its overstrike on a Philip.  I don't understand the mind of the counterfeiter, but this seems like a lot of work to go too for only two examples showing up on the market in 10 years (and one of them somehow winding up on eBay for $50).  But some of them play the long game, I suppose.  Maybe some more will show up on the market. 

Thank you for the effort you put into looking this over.  Even fake, this is interesting.  

 

 

[Heliodromus]

The relevance of the "pimple" and other green arrow details (border dot out of alignment with neighbor, forked hair clump and one below it) is they they appear identical between both coins, as does alignment between the obv legend and border dots, and number of border dots ... It's hard to explain the apparent different alignment of the crown points with the legend between each coin (unless due to rework), but all these other matching details does make me suspicious that yours is copied from the Hirsch one.

It's an interesting puzzle. It may still be real, and at that price a decent gamble anyway. Absent any other evidence it seems the only way to get a pretty definitive answer would be to send it to NGC and let Barry Murphy and David Vagi figure it out!

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Tejas]

3 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

I don't understand the mind of the counterfeiter, but this seems like a lot of work to go too for only two examples showing up on the market in 10 years (and one of them somehow winding up on eBay for $50). 

The evidence seems to be stagging up against the coin - unfortunately. However, the above is an interesting point as well. Making these coins in such small numbers seems a lot of effort for a certain risk and low reward. I also wonder why a forger, who is intent on faking a very rare and very valuable coin would create a hitherto unrecorded reverse for that coin. Would this not attract extra scrutiny? Also, if the style of genuine coins is so homogenous, why would a forger diverge from it and create something of his own instead of just copying what is there and hiding any short-comings behind artificially poor condition? It may all just be incompetence and ignorance or a deliberate attempt to lead people into the wrong directions. Anyway, I also don't understand the mind of the counterfeiter.