Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake Constantine Hat at auction

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BeastCoins
    started a topic Fake Constantine Hat at auction

    Fake Constantine Hat at auction

    Thanks to John Mixter for sending me an email to this fake currently at auction:



    Pegasi Numismatics, Auction XXII, Lot 599:

    CONSTANTINE I, 307-337 AD. Æ Follis-Medallion (3.06 gm), Thessaloniki (TS*A). DN CONSTAN [ ] VS P F P T AV[ ] Draped bust wearing a tall hat / VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINCI [ ] Two Victories confronted, holding votive shield over altar. RIC.-. VF, brown patina, porosity. Extremely Rare. [Est. $350]

    And here is my, as of yet unique as far as I know, example that the above fake is copying.



    Constantine I, AE3, 318-319 (for exergue mark), Siscia, Officina 3
    IMP CON_STANT_INVS PERT AVG
    Draped, cuirassed bust of Constantine I right, wearing Pannonian cap
    VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP
    Two Victories, standing facing each other, inscribing shield with VOT | PR on altar with X and + design (altar type Y)
    gSIS in exergue
    18mm x 19mm, 3.27g
    RIC VII, --

    I was made aware several years ago of this fake via some good folks over at Forvm, so I recognized it immediately when John sent me the auction link.

    I'm sure the submitter chose Pegasi for the consignment as I have never spoken to Nick or Eldert about my coin, so they would not know this is a fake. I'm sending them an email so they can withdraw it from the auction. Just a note - the exergual mark on the fake is gSIS as on my coin and since my example has some ambiguitiy in the obverse legend, the forger went with what looks like PEPT whereas mine is still unclear as to PART, PERT or something else.

    Sigh.

    --Beast

  • BeastCoins
    replied
    I forgot to mention - note the obverse legend is also quite different than my hat example. The fakes are:

    D N CONS_TANTI_NVS PE PT AVG

    mine is:

    IMP CON_STANT_INVS PERT AVG

    --Beast

    Leave a comment:


  • BeastCoins
    replied
    Originally posted by hydatius View Post
    I doubt anyone has noticed this but here's a photo from the latest auction from Rauch (Sommerauktion 2010, 13 September) lot 1717. I wonder which one is 'eine moderne Phantasiemünze'?
    Yes, I saw it. Marc Breitsprecher sent me the link a number of days ago. Pegai had one in their last auction as well (but withdrew it when I pointed it out to Eldert and Nick).



    Constantine I, AE3, c.319, Siscia, Officina 3
    D N CONS_TANTI_NVS PE PT AVG
    Draped, cuirassed bust of Constantine right wearing pilleus
    VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP
    Two Victories, standing facing each other, inscribing shield surmounted by two leaves with VOT | PR above altar, X and center pellet design
    ΓSIS pellet in exergue
    ?mm, 3.06g
    RIC VII, --
    Image courtesy Pegasi Numismatics, Auction XXII, Lot 599, April 2010

    I don't know who made these or how many, but there seem to be enough that they will be on the market for years. Hopefully I will acquire an example at some time so I can give my personal opinion of it from seeing one in hand.

    --Beast

    Leave a comment:


  • hydatius
    replied
    I doubt anyone has noticed this but here's a photo from the latest auction from Rauch (Sommerauktion 2010, 13 September) lot 1717. I wonder which one is 'eine moderne Phantasiemünze'?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • marcus flavius
    replied
    I still like it!

    I was intriqued by Zach's coin for years...thinking it may well be a trail strike.
    The area of issue bodes well for this design.
    The only drawbacks to this already have been noted..including the high relief of the hat.
    The imagary of the Emperor wearing such a device is plausible, though I would be more inclined if it were decorated with imperial symbols.
    Again, if it were a trail strike that could be overlooked.
    This current photo, though, brings to question if the modern die maker is experimenting with his work.
    Regardless, an interesting concept and my "hats off" to the creator..well done...and if indeed it is modern, please make one for my collection!

    Leave a comment:


  • areich
    replied
    Zack, I don't pretend to be an expert on these. I'm sceptical of your coin and just from the look and surfaces the other one appeared possibly ancient, or 'more convincingly ancient' to me. Thena again they can make pretty convincing fakes if they really try.

    Leave a comment:


  • vozmozhno
    replied
    Funny thing is that I was thinking the same thing.

    Of course I know a bit of the history of "the hat coin" having casually followed some of the past discussions on the object in question. If I remember correctly, some knowledgable folks have examined it closely and believe it to be authentic. I remain somewhat skeptical--purely based on the coin's aesthetics.

    The hat on Zach's coin, though seemingly proportional to the head, encroaches upon the legend to a degree that makes the coin look very odd compared to anything else I can recall. Whereas the other coin has a head (and hat) which fit comfortably on the coin and leave appropriate space for the legend.

    If I didn't know the second coin was a fake, I would have considered it the strongest evidence in support of the first coin's authenticity.

    Voz Earl

    Leave a comment:


  • BeastCoins
    replied
    Originally posted by areich View Post
    I'm not saying it's real but I wonder why you just assume theirs is fake and yours isn't. It looks more convincingly ancient than your coin.
    Areich,

    If you would, please explain why you think the Pegasi specimen looks more convincingly ancient than mine and I will explain why I think the Pegasi piece is false. I need to understand what you are thinking before I can offer a rebuttal or I will just be guessing.

    So, please go first - why do you think the coin is ancient?

    Thank you in advance,

    --Zach

    Leave a comment:


  • Roma_Orbis
    replied
    Originally posted by areich View Post
    I see, that is a convincing argument, that the second coin is fake.
    This was not supposed to be an argument to convince anybody (nor was it a reply to your post), just a reference to a serie well-known from years. Ask so B. Murphy ... he showed pictures some years ago.

    But then talking about arguments, a die-match to a known pressed fake is intrinsically a fake, yes, no wonder. Oh well ...

    Jérôme
    Last edited by Roma_Orbis; Mar 4, 2010, 11:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • areich
    replied
    I'm not saying it's real but I wonder why you just assume theirs is fake and yours isn't. It looks more convincingly ancient than your coin.

    Originally posted by Roma_Orbis View Post
    Always this same serie of late Roman AEs fakes ..
    http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2801
    See 1st picture.

    Jérôme
    I see, that is a convincing argument, that the second coin is fake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roma_Orbis
    replied
    Always this same serie of late Roman AEs fakes ..
    http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2801
    See 1st picture.

    Jérôme

    Leave a comment:


  • BeastCoins
    replied
    areich,

    Please give your input as to why you believe the Pegasi specimen may be real and is more convincing than my example, and I will give my reasons for believing it to be a modern fake.

    Thanks,

    --Beast
    Last edited by BeastCoins; Mar 3, 2010, 02:02 PM. Reason: Reworded my request for more information.

    Leave a comment:


  • areich
    replied
    What exactly makes this coin fake? It looks a lot more convincing than yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • BeastCoins
    replied
    Voz,

    But the reverse legend ends in PERP(ETVI). Perhaps the obverse legend is PERP(OSTVROVS)?

    --Beast

    Leave a comment:


  • vozmozhno
    replied
    lol--I think it was a joke. PERP as in perpetrator. Am I wrong Richard?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X