Stumbed by a coin offered at Leu, forgery?

[Victrix]

The coin at Leu strikes me as genuine but I happened to scroll eBay and found a fake that seems to be a match of the coin. Wondering if that coin was used as a mould or if it's a forgery aswell. 

Thoughts?

[Ryro]

Good call out on it possibly being the "mother" coin. Though, I see casting pimples on the ebay coin and not on the Leu coin, it is now suspect and not desirable as well. 

A shame if it is the original. Great portrait and fun headless-asus reverse.

[CPK]

Yeah. The Leu coin looks fine to me. But the eBay coin is clearly a cast copy.

[mcwyler]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but does that mean that the same person might be selling the fake on eBay, and selling the original at Leu? Given that the two things are happening now? 
If so, buying the latter would be aiding a criminal?
 

[Roman Collector]

Statistically speaking, the most likely explanation for this is that they are both cast fakes (but the Leu one is technically better than the eBay one. Perhaps the forger got more skilled with casting). There would be only one mother coin, but potentially hundreds of casts out there. 

[Sulla80]

Impressive catch @Victrix, I do think the Leu coin looks different enough that it could be the original coin.  It does seem coincidental that this coin would show up on EBay and Leu at the same time.  Hopefully improvements in image search & AI Image matching will help to make such fakes easier to spot - more reason to rely on expert certification and even that is not infallible. 

There was a post from @dougsmit a few years ago that sticks with me:

Quote

 

"The harder we look at coins, the more likely we are to talk ourselves in or out of a decision. I own four classes of coins:

1.  Coins I am certain are fake
2. Coins I am unsure whether they are fake (90-10, 50-50, 10-90 etc.)
3. Coins I am nearly certain are genuine
4. Coins I used to be 100% certain were genuine but am getting less and less certain about anything the older I get"

 

I try to buy only coins in category 3 these days - and I have accumulated a box of coins from the other categories over the years.

Several sites that are very incomplete and worth being aware of :

• Forum Fake Reports: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/
• Forgery Network: https://forgerynetwork.com/default.aspx
• Toronto Group Images: https://www.chijanofuji.com/online_liquidators.html
• @Valentinian's Fake Seller's list http://augustuscoins.com/ed/fakesellers.html

Edited December 1, 2024 by Sulla80

[Romismatist]

Agree with everyone here that the Leu coin looks genuine but the EBay coin is clearly a cast fake. However, both are identical even in terms of the weakness of the lettering on the obverse. I would agree with those speculating that the Leu coin may be the mother of the cast forgery, but l would now also be more hesitant in bidding on the Leu coin. Great catch, but scary for all of us collectors. I agree with Doug Smith's prescient categorization...

[David Atherton]

I see nothing alarming with the Leu specimen, it likely is indeed the 'mother' coin to the eBay example. Slight differences between the two can be attributed to the casting process and possible distressing of the forgery.

[Mucius Scaevola]

I had it on my list, but now it's "scorched earth" and I will not bid on it. Yes, it is likely to be the mother, but do I want to sit in front of it and ask myself everyday if it might not still be a fake? No, I don't.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Mucius Scaevola

[DANTE]

Somewhat related:

Not sure what to make of this. Two odd-looking staters from identical dies appearing simultaneously on the market. Both soapy looking, both have the same die wear. According to seller 1, their specimen is provenanced to 1973, the other one, from seller 2, has no provenance.

biddr - Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Auction 51, lot 568. KILIKIEN. TARSOS. Mazaios, 361-334 v. Chr. Stater, 361-334 Baaltars n.l. auf T...

biddr - Auktionshaus Tietjen+Co., Auction 129, lot 130. GRIECHEN. KILIKIEN, Tarsos. Mazaios, 361–334 v. Chr. AR Stater. Sitz. Baaltars n..

[Curtisimo]

On 12/1/2024 at 8:14 AM, Roman Collector said:

Statistically speaking, the most likely explanation for this is that they are both cast fakes (but the Leu one is technically better than the eBay one. Perhaps the forger got more skilled with casting). There would be only one mother coin, but potentially hundreds of casts out there. 

+1 to this. Good catch @Victrix!

[Sulla80]

12 hours ago, DANTE said:

Somewhat related:

Not sure what to make of this. Two odd-looking staters from identical dies appearing simultaneously on the market. Both soapy looking, both have the same die wear. According to seller 1, their specimen is provenanced to 1973, the other one, from seller 2, has no provenance.

biddr - Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Auction 51, lot 568. KILIKIEN. TARSOS. Mazaios, 361-334 v. Chr. Stater, 361-334 Baaltars n.l. auf T...

biddr - Auktionshaus Tietjen+Co., Auction 129, lot 130. GRIECHEN. KILIKIEN, Tarsos. Mazaios, 361–334 v. Chr. AR Stater. Sitz. Baaltars n..

I cannot claim to be an expert in these coins - but the description on the provenanced coin does say "SNG BN Paris 351 var. Ancient imitation (?) with slightly untamed style."

Also suspect: doesn't Ba'al / Baaltars usually face forward on this particular issue? I'd like to check the reference number on the provenanced coin - I don't have CNG Paris Cilicia handy, but would be worth seeing if 351 is the coin shown.  There are other coins " lion bringing down bull above a pair of crenellated walls" and "lion bringing down stag" with Ba'al facing left.  IMO "soapy" isn't necessarily damning: rusty dies, worn dies, weak strike, badly cleaned....lots of ways in which a strike might end up looking "soapy" other than casting.  All of that said - I have no intention of bidding on either coin 🙂

 

[DANTE]

Hi @Sulla80☺️

Yes, I had read the description of the provenanced coin as well, and it would explain the unusual design. But the thing that bugs me is not that two coins with an unusual, 'barbarous' design, from identical dies and with identical die wear, should show up simultaneously at auction. If anything, that makes sense (although I don't like the look of them). The thing that bugs me is that one of them comes with a 50 year old provenance, and the other one without a provenance. I'm no statistician, but the odds of both statements being true seem long.

ps. I just checked Biddr. The provenanced coin has now been withdrawn from sale (!)😊

Edited December 3, 2024 by DANTE