Someone Paid 3000 GBP for This

[David Atherton]

8 minutes ago, Ricardo123 said:

My point is: maybe muller did not know the link with denarius, but he know what a tooled coin is for sure. He had coin in hand for years maybe. Please don’t be too fast to judge, let’s wait for other expert opinion. I know you flavian expert, but remember your Vespasiano Reusing Sestertio; even c.clay thought it was genuine. 

Even if it's not tooled and untouched it's no indication of authenticity.

BTW, thank you for throwing shade again at me and Curtis. Nice touch. 

[Ricardo123]

9 minutes ago, David Atherton said:

BTW, thank you for throwing shade again at me and Curtis.

And thank you for insulting a member here , calling his purchase a « piece of junk ». Just hoping for you simon w is not simon wieland. Respect 

[David Atherton]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo123 said:

And thank you for insulting a member here , calling his purchase a « piece of junk ». Just hoping for you simon w is not simon wieland. Respect 

It's a modern forgery and when originally posted here I obviously had no clue who purchased it.

You can stop trolling now.

[Ricardo123]

3 minutes ago, David Atherton said:

You can stop trolling now.

Just want remember you it is a forum of DISCUSSION here. Meaning not everyone share always same opinion. If you dont want to be contredict, maybe become monk and go in monastery!😁

[David Atherton]

Just now, Ricardo123 said:

Just want remember you it is a forum of DISCUSSION here. Meaning not everyone share always same opinion. If you dont want to be contredict, maybe become monk and go in monastery!😁

But there is a level of decorum and politeness we follow. Please remember that and leave your personal feelings aside.

I don't mind being contradicted. But you do so with no evidence and in a most disruptive manner. That's the issue.

[DonnaML]

25 minutes ago, Ricardo123 said:

Just want remember you it is a forum of DISCUSSION here. Meaning not everyone share always same opinion. If you dont want to be contredict, maybe become monk and go in monastery!😁

There's no need to be rude about it. And @David Atherton wasn't insulting anyone in his original post. @SimonW didn't seem to be offended, so why should you be?

Edited December 19, 2023 by DonnaML

[SimonW]

Calling the coin a "piece of junk" and some of the following comments were a bit harsh, but I didn't take any of it personally. I value David's opinion, even if I do not agree with it 100%. Let's focus on the coin and a constructive discussion about it.

@David Atherton and everyone else who thinks it's obvious that the reverse must be tooled: what makes you think it's tooled, other than the unusual style of the ship? To me, the surfaces look smoothed, but the ship's details do not look tooled. The S C and the dotted border look sharp and stylistically fine. If it turns out that the reverse is not tooled, the likelihood that it is authentic increases dramatically in my opinion, since it rules out David's theory of a cast with a tooled reverse.

What else could it be? A struck/pressed forgery from a transfer obverse die with a modern or tooled transfer reverse die? Unlikely.

 

4 hours ago, David Atherton said:

If Muller knew of the obverse die link to a denarius (!) he would've condemned it too. 

This piece has been around awhile, but yet it didn't make it into the new RIC II.1. Ask yourself why.

Was the coin published anywhere before it turned up at Naville? Or what else makes you think the authors of RIC II.1 knew about it?

[David Atherton]

I believe it to be a cast forgery based on the fact the obverse is indeed a cast from a denarius die (!). That's not in doubt. How the reverse was fabricated I can only speculate. My hunch is that it is a whole cloth creation based on the clumsy style and the massive amount of smoothing involved. The style isn't even close to the supposed contemporaneous Domitanic quadrantes featuring a sailing ship reverse. That's a huge red flag. 

Regarding Carradice and Buttrey not including it in the new RIC - the book was  commissioned by Spink in the 80s and published 20 years later. Surely Muller, a Spink employee, would've known of it and asked B. & C. about the piece? Or, was it in Muller's 'Black cabinet'? You are of course correct in wondering about its provenance. Where did it come from?

I mean no offence and have no dog in this fight. I only go where the evidence leads me. 🤷 

Edited December 19, 2023 by David Atherton

[SimonW]

27 minutes ago, David Atherton said:

Regarding Carradice and Buttrey not including it in the new RIC - the book was  commissioned by Spink in the 80s and published 20 years later. Surely Muller, a Spink employee, would've known of it and asked B. & C. about the piece?

We don't have any information, when he might have purchased the piece, do we?

[David Atherton]

17 hours ago, SimonW said:

3. Despite the "special" ship style, I don't see any obvious traces of tooling. The surfaces look smoothed, but otherwise not tooled. At my request, Naville examined the coin closely a second time, and they are certain that there is no tooling.

I meant to ask this earlier, so forgive the delay, in Naville's own description of the lot tooling is mentioned: Apparently unpublished. Dark tone, surface somewhat tooled, otherwise Good Very fine

Are they taking that back after the auction? The original description supports my hypothesis the reverse is indeed tooled!

[David Atherton]

48 minutes ago, SimonW said:

We don't have any information, when he might have purchased the piece, do we?

Sorry, I haven't a clue.

[Limes]

5 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

And thank you for insulting a member here , calling his purchase a « piece of junk ». Just hoping for you simon w is not simon wieland. Respect 

Who?

[SimonW]

10 minutes ago, David Atherton said:

I meant to ask this earlier, so forgive the delay, in Naville's own description of the lot tooling is mentioned: Apparently unpublished. Dark tone, surface somewhat tooled, otherwise Good Very fine

Are they taking that back after the auction? The original description supports my hypothesis the reverse is indeed tooled!

Thanks for pointing that out. That's actually interesting. It originally said nothing at all, then was changed to "somewhat smoothed" (which is when I placed my bid), and seems to have finally been changed to "somewhat tooled". Since my email asking about tooling was replied to with "we checked the coin and it's having just a minor smoothing" and my bid was placed before the final change (without being informed), it should be even easier to return the coin. I'll certainly ask them and have it confirmed before I pay.

If it was just "somewhat tooled" but otherwise authentic, I'd probably still take it. But if it's tooled, there's no doubt that "somewhat" is a strong understatement.

 

[ajax]

9 hours ago, Ricardo123 said:

And thank you for insulting a member here , calling his purchase a « piece of junk ». Just hoping for you simon w is not simon wieland. Respect 

What will happen if he is ? He will block Atherton from biddr?😁 It's interesting to see biddr owners bidding in the auctions they host in their platform. I am sure they don't use any bidding information to their advantage. It would be also easy to return the coin, because otherwise a return is never accepted unless you get a statement from Sear; even then returns are not accepted by some auctioneers.

 😁

[Kaleun96]

1 hour ago, SimonW said:

Thanks for pointing that out. That's actually interesting. It originally said nothing at all, then was changed to "somewhat smoothed" (which is when I placed my bid), and seems to have finally been changed to "somewhat tooled". Since my email asking about tooling was replied to with "we checked the coin and it's having just a minor smoothing" and my bid was placed before the final change (without being informed), it should be even easier to return the coin. I'll certainly ask them and have it confirmed before I pay.

If it was just "somewhat tooled" but otherwise authentic, I'd probably still take it. But if it's tooled, there's no doubt that "somewhat" is a strong understatement.

 

I noticed the lot doesn't seem to have the usual "changelog" that you can find on biddr when lots have been updated but as the owner of the platform I guess you have your own ways of finding out if and when it changed 😅

[Salomons Cat]

@Ricardo123and @ajax, I must say that I find it respectless to publicly speculate about the identity of a user.

@David Atherton has a clear opinion and he expressed it firmly. Nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing that indicates that anything of it was meant in a personal way. 

So maybe you 2 (@Ricardo123 and @ajax) could stop conjuring any kind of personal conflict? 

Because I find this discussion interesting and I would like to know how it turns out. 

[Prieure de Sion]

5 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

Because I find this discussion interesting and I would like to know how it turns out. 

Same here! And personal attacks should be avoided. I am very interested to see what happens with the coin and look forward to the opinions and explanations of the experts.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

36 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

@Ricardo123and @ajax, I must say that I find it respectless to publicly speculate about the identity of a user.

@David Atherton has a clear opinion and he expressed it firmly. Nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing that indicates that anything of it was meant in a personal way. 

So maybe you 2 (@Ricardo123 and @ajax) could stop conjuring any kind of personal conflict? 

Because I find this discussion interesting and I would like to know how it turns out. 

He has identified himself here before

[Al Kowsky]

I give SimonW credit for stepping forward & identifying himself as the buyer who won this coin after the avalanche on negative remarks the coin received, something I probably wouldn't have done 😉.

[SimonW]

Short update:

After some back and forth, Naville informed me that the "somewhat tooled" was added as a precautionary measure because of the mechanical marks that can be seen on the obverse, presumably from cleaning.

They assured me that they have examined the coin carefully and that they do not see any traces of tooling on the reverse, nor do they believe that the coin is a forgery. The coin will now be sent to the IBSCC by Naville to get some further opinions.

I'll keep you posted.

Edited January 25 by SimonW

[David Atherton]

4 minutes ago, SimonW said:

Short update:

After some back and forth, Naville informed me that the "somewhat tooled" was added as a precautionary measure because of the mechanical marks that can be seen on the obverse, presumably from cleaning.

They assured me that they have examined the coin carefully and that they do not see any traces of tooling on the reverse, nor do they believe that the coin is a forgery. The coin will now be sent to the IBSCC by Naville to get some further opinions.

I'll keep you posted as soon as there are any news.

Thanks for the update! 

[idesofmarch01]

34 minutes ago, SimonW said:

After some back and forth, Naville informed me that the "somewhat tooled" was added as a precautionary measure because of the mechanical marks that can be seen on the obverse, presumably from cleaning.

They assured me that they have examined the coin carefully and that they do not see any traces of tooling on the reverse, nor do they believe that the coin is a forgery. The coin will now be sent to the IBSCC by Naville to get some further opinions.

Personally, while I'm not an expert here, I don't see the usual signs of tooling anywhere on this coin.  E.g., there are no exceedingly sharp lines and delineations in areas that otherwise show significant circulation wear, or areas of uneven sharpness (such as the fine lines in the reverse) while the legends are unsharp.

There is obvious smoothing in the fields but that's to be expected with any AE.  Whether or not this coin is authentic, I'm inclined to believe Naville's representation that they don't see any traces of tooling on the reverse.

[David Atherton]

29 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

Personally, while I'm not an expert here, I don't see the usual signs of tooling anywhere on this coin.  E.g., there are no exceedingly sharp lines and delineations in areas that otherwise show significant circulation wear, or areas of uneven sharpness (such as the fine lines in the reverse) while the legends are unsharp.

There is obvious smoothing in the fields but that's to be expected with any AE.  Whether or not this coin is authentic, I'm inclined to believe Naville's representation that they don't see any traces of tooling on the reverse.

Questions of tooling aside, the major problem with this piece is the obverse match to a denarius die (cast?) and the wrong style of the reverse. The tooling is a minor concern and really has no bearing whether it's a forgery or not. 

[Phil Anthos]

42 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

There is obvious smoothing in the fields but that's to be expected with any AE. 

Really?  🤔

[idesofmarch01]

2 hours ago, Phil Anthos said:

Really?  🤔

Absolutely!

This isn't a thread about tooling so it's inappropriate to sidetrack it by getting into a detailed discussion about why a coin does or doesn't appear tooled, but for me one giveaway is the sharpness of details on an otherwise well-worn coin that has obviously experienced a lot of circulation wear.  You can see a lot of tooled bronzes by using ACSEARCH and entering the phrase "tooling sestertius" to get an extensive list of AEs that have been described as tooled, by the auction houses themselves!

That's why my post above had nothing whatsoever to do with judging the coin's authenticity.  I was just giving Naville the benefit of the doubt when it came to their representation that it wasn't tooled.  In the absence of additional information, I just think it's fair to examine Naville's representation objectively and provide logical support for one's observations.