Anastasius solidus, problematic

[Hrefn]

Alas, it is not my ambition to become a member of the International Coin Police Squad.  Although they do have cool uniforms.  

But another problematic solidus is up for auction, and before anyone makes a large financial commitment to it, a bit of extra scrutiny is in order.  Here’s the coin in question.

I have not communicated with the auction house yet, because my source for questioning this coin’s authenticity is not published, and I am looking for publicly available confirmation before doing so.  As always, do your own due diligence.  Coins from these dies have been sold by major firms for some years.  If authentic, it would certainly be a highly desirable coin.  

 

[Romismatist]

Thanks for letting us know, @Hrefn. When the sources become public (or other sources for validation become known), it would be great to learn more.

[Victor_Clark]

if you can't explain why a coin is fake; maybe it is best to not publicly cast shade. I am all for freely sharing of information and knowledge...it should never be behind a paywall.

[Hrefn]

11 hours ago, Victor_Clark said:

if you can't explain why a coin is fake; maybe it is best to not publicly cast shade. I am all for freely sharing of information and knowledge...it should never be behind a paywall.

I do not disagree.  I debated with myself whether to make this post.  When I noticed the false Focas solidus in the Bertolami auction recently and posted about it, I did not have published information at my fingertips, either;   just a memory of a sighting of that coin twenty years ago.  That is why I did not immediately condemn the coin as definitively false, and requested some opinions from fellow Forum members.  

It so happened in that case I was able to answer my own question, as I found published evidence the Focas solidus was false. @Nemo , @I_v_a_n and others added corroboration.   Bertolami dodged the issue and did not withdraw the coin, which lead to more scrutiny of their offerings.  The end result was that Biddr threw Bertolami off their auction platform, and the whole Numis Forums community was benefitted, being cautioned about dealing with them.  

Which brings us to the Anastasius solidus with the Rome mintmark.  To reiterate, I have not said the coin is unequivocally false.  On ACsearch there are records of identical coins sold by major auction houses as far back as 2007 or so.  There may be older records which I have not discovered.  None of these auction listings makes reference to any older provenance.  The usual caveat about judging a coin’s genuineness from photographs applies.

The coins appear to be die-struck.  They are all remarkably similar.  On comparing them to other Ostrogothic solidi of Anastasius from Rome, the portrait of Anastasius is more realistic than the other portraits.

Here is a solidus sold in a Polish auction earlier this year.  I believe it was not identified as Ostrogothic, and the purchaser got a rarity at quite a bargain.  This coin, and the one following, bear the greatest resemblance to the OP coin in style.  Note the RM mintmark.  

Here is one from a NAC auction 2006.  Different obverse and reverse dies from the Polish coin, but very similar to it.  This coin is the closest in style to the OP coin, but the portrait is much more restrained.  The OP coin portrait with the upturned gaze, the aggressive tilt of the head, was created by an engraver of some talent, whether ancient or modern.  

Here from a Goldberg sale, 2012, attributed to the Rome mint by them.  

Another attributed to the Rome mint by Heritage, 2012.  Victory has beaded wing feathers like the OP coin.  Interestingly, all the other coins I have examined thus far which bear the RM mintmark in the reverse left field, 3 of which are illustrated here, do not have beaded wing tips.  

Sincona 2014, another with the Rome mintmark.  

There appears from the auction records that there are multiple examples of the OP coin, all in more or less perfect condition.  The dies were engraved by a celator of some talent, who imparted an expressiveness and defiance into the emperor’s portrait which, in my opinion, is atypical for coins from the same mint and era.  The details of the wing feathers could be a normal variant. 

This could all be explained by a hoard of freshly struck genuine coins discovered some years ago.  Such things have happened.  The Burgundian solidi of Sigismund, of which there are about 20, all come from the same hoard discovered in the 1840’s.  

I would be very gratified to see an example of the OP coin in an old collection or catalog.   It is perilous to condemn coins of this type on grounds of style as these imitative and sometimes unofficial issues show great variation. The brief run of examples above shows this.  I remain uneasy about this coin, and I solicit the opinions of other Numis Forums members.

[Rand]

Disclosures:

• I am no expert in fakes
• I have no authority in fakes
• I am a hobby collector with a love for coins and history

I like the historical period of the time of Anastasius, doing a die study of his gold coins and have circa 100 of them. I look at them often.

The coins from the dies from the OP first appeared in 2005 at Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 141 (to my knowledge), and were sold at high prices. The Tyrant Collection presents an early copy from Numismatica Genevensis SA, Auction 5. 02/12/2008, which hammered for CHF 18,000 (plus fees). The coin was soon on my wish list. 

The coins kept appearing… and there was something wrong about the look of some of them. This is subjective, and they do follow the attributes of coins from Rome.

I did an extensive search of them. They were nowhere in museum collections nor old sales. This is highly unusual for these coins. Even though there are many varieties, I can almost always find an old die match, die link, or very similar dies. These were completely new, from the same pair of dies and in large numbers. New coins keep appearing still. 

There was no good authority to share my suspicion, and when a coin reappeared in a very reputable auction house sale, I raised my concerns. They took them seriously and promised to investigate. Later, they informed me that my concerns were correct, and they re-bought the coin from their sale (it was not withdrawn).

The coins are not on a publicly accessible list of forgeries; everyone has to make their opinion. I have mine.

 

[Rand]

Another attributed to the Rome mint by Heritage, 2012.  Victory has beaded wing feathers like the OP coin.  Interestingly, all the other coins I have examined thus far which bear the RM mintmark in the reverse left field, 3 of which are illustrated here, do not have beaded wing tips.  

 

I am not sure I can see RM mintmark on this coin (which is now in my collection). These coins follow a disctint style development line and are mostly considered Visigothic. I think they are likely from Arles.

[Hrefn]

Dear @Rand, thank you for sharing your expertise on this problematic coin.  I did not feel it was my right to drag you into the discussion without your consent, but at the same time I was fervently hoping you would enter in on your own accord.  

As to the Heritage coin with the beaded wingtips which you now own, I did only say it was attributed to Rome by Heritage.  The coin above it was attributed to Rome by Goldberg.  Neither is mintmarked, and the attributions are just the cataloguers’ judgements.  I suspect the Goldberg coin is not from the Rome mint, either.  I think it is a copy of this Ostrogothic coin (which may well be from Rome.)

 @Al Kowsky owns the most spectacular example.  But who made the Goldberg coin, I have no firm idea.  To be very clear I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the coins illustrated except for my doubts about the OP coin.  

[Al Kowsky]

3 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Dear @Rand, thank you for sharing your expertise on this problematic coin.  I did not feel it was my right to drag you into the discussion without your consent, but at the same time I was fervently hoping you would enter in on your own accord.  

As to the Heritage coin with the beaded wingtips which you now own, I did only say it was attributed to Rome by Heritage.  The coin above it was attributed to Rome by Goldberg.  Neither is mintmarked, and the attributions are just the cataloguers’ judgements.  I suspect the Goldberg coin is not from the Rome mint, either.  I think it is a copy of this Ostrogothic coin (which may well be from Rome.)

 @Al Kowsky owns the most spectacular example.  But who made the Goldberg coin, I have no firm idea.  To be very clear I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the coins illustrated except for my doubts about the OP coin.  

I sold that coin several weeks ago 🥹.

 

[rasiel]

I share my reservations with OP. The fact that I've seen half a dozen coins of what should be a very rare series all sharing the same obv/rev die pair sets my spidey senses a-tingling. Flat soapy fields certainly don't help at all. However, considering that they've passed muster with some top talent (and I haven't seen any of them up close myself) keeps me from going any further. I'll also add that the dies are seemingly genuine meaning that if some/all of these are fake they're the result of a die transfer.

Incidental to this, I believe based on as yet unpublished research that this particular series was minted in Constantinople, not Rome, despite the RM monogram (which suggests some interesting theories if true).

Rasiel