Monday 29 February 2016

Celtic coin forgeries: conclusion

Carl Becker, 1772-1830, forgery of Pertinax denarius (top)
with the genuine Roman coin of the same type (bottom)
photos: Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
While Celtic coins have been faked far less than Greek and Roman coins, they present a very different problem in their detection: an artist working in classical styles usually reflects something of the present time. The result looks classical and ancient, but when we see a Renaissance forgery today, it carries a Renaissance look about it, and a nineteenth century forgery can now look nineteenth century. The coins that are forged today with cut dies, and not pressure cast will carry something of our own perceptions of classical art to future generations. The further away from the period of the forgery, the more obvious this effect becomes.

Celtic coins that are not in the classical styles present a problem as they are not of an artistic style that we emulate today, and there are only two ways to detect a forgery : from analytic methods such as the observation of minute details in comparison with known genuine examples, or metallurgical or metrological methods, or that gut feeling that comes when one has handled enough genuine coins of the period.  Our unconscious minds are recording everything, but is is only upon some sort of stimulation that this information comes into our consciousness. A year or so ago, there was a British Celtic coin type that became fairly plentiful in dealer's catalogues. The very first one I saw, bothered me. I felt that it was a modern forgery, but I could not explain to anyone what made it a modern forgery. I started to compare it with other examples and that is when I discovered that there had been a small number of them offered for sale in recent years. When I saw that each one of them had exactly the same details visible on the coin (unusual for many Celtic coins which are often off-struck and you have to look at a number of them to see the complete design), I was confident in my original assessment. A good forger only copies what is seen and knows better than not to invent part of a design as it will never be quite right.

Finally, I took all of the photos to my friend Robert Kokotailo of Calgary coin who has handled tens of thousands of ancient coins over many decades and also personally collects and studies forgeries. I told him that I was sure the coins were all fake but could not explain what gave them away. He took one look at the inscription on the coins and told me, "In every ancient coin I have seen that has beading in the ends of the lines of the letters, the die engraver cuts these dots first to use as a guide for the lines of the letters. On these  coins, all of the beads were done after the letters were engraved". Then it became obvious to me too.

Novice collectors should familiarize themselves with the coins they want to collect even just by looking at illustrations in books before they start to buy their coins. Do not rely on certificates of authenticity, these are often used as a confidence trick to prevent buyers from being suspicious, but do buy from dealers who have a good reputation in the trade and will refund your money if anything turns out to be false (and some forgeries are very clever and can fool even seasoned dealers). Anything can be faked, and that includes provenance and find-spot information. Some ways to tell bad fakes are simple: a lost wax-casting of an ancient struck coin will feel soapy to the touch because the presence of raised bubbles and these bubbles can also be found in the smallest of lines of a pressure-cast forgery such as in the inscriptions of the silver coins of Syracuse. It might take a microscope, however, to see these bubbles in a good pressure cast fake. Most modern coin forgeries are of relatively modern coins: There are Chinese "copies", for example, of eighteenth century American dollars that are made very skilfully. With ancient forgeries of Celtic coins, the question is more "Are these really fakes or some sort of token?" Finally, do not take any web-page feedback as an indication that all is safe: many people can be fooled by fakes and will give positive feedback.

Tomorrow, an amusing example of journalistic(?) hype.


John's Coydog Community page

11 comments:

  1. Please illustrate the forgery you spotted - after all, shouldn't other people be made aware of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would never publicly condemn a coin offered by a major dealer, or on display in a museum on the basis of listing photographs. Once a coin (or anything else) is made suspect, it loses value regardless of whether that suspicion is later refuted.

      Besides,the images are not public domain and I would need permission to use them. Even contacting a dealer about a coin they are offering for sale can lead to difficulties. This happened with Robert when he saw a couple of auction coins that he felt were fakes. It turned out, in the end, that he was right, but that was only published after scientific testing. Instinct is one thing, but it is not legally defensible!

      I have given my opinions about a coin when requested to do so by its owner when I can see the actual coin or examine customized photographs taken with different lighting. I have also been contracted to write reports about a coin's appearance: A rare gold coin Dean was offering was suspected by an archaeologist of being from a reported hoard that happened to have been found a few km away from where Dean found the coin. I wrote him a report, on the basis of photographs that his coin showed strong evidence of having been buried as a single find from the effect of earth particles changing the surface nature of the gold making the details, everywhere, less crisp than a hoard coin not in contact with the earth for centuries. I used the hoard examples as a comparison. Only a few coins of that type are known to exist.

      I don't mind giving my opinion, privately, to anyone who is contemplating buying a coin, but I base that opinion only on the basis of what I see and stress that it is just an opinion on whether I would buy it on the basis of what I see, and not any sort of certificate of authenticity where an actual examination of the coin is needed. David Sear kept my dekadrachm of Syracuse for a couple of months before he certified it as genuine because it had been previously condemned as fake. Even then, as I said, the accusation had reduced its value. Without that accusation its value would have been in excess of 20k, I sold it for 7k less commissions. As I bought it as a auction catalogued fake, and at little more than such a fake would fetch, I was not too upset, though.

      Delete
  2. What, not even a Van Arsdell number?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it is an extremely rare type, seldom offered.The VA number would easily identify the examples. The forger, if we are right, picked well: a rare and desirable type in really nice condition would not require too many to be made to achieve a lot of income. That a few of them showed up around the same time, should have aroused suspicion, though. as I said before, basing everything on just a single feature is very risky, anyway.

      Delete
  3. So how do you progress from here? WIll you discuss it with other coin specialists? Will you contact the dealers concerned to ask if they have any further information on the coin? No particular need to raise your suspicions from the outset. Or will collectors just have to put up with being duped?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will continue to write posts on the ways that we can, and do look at antiquities, coins and the other things I write about:
      "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Less messy, more useful, my style.

      Delete
  4. Disappointing. It's certainly less messy to bother with providing any evidence for others to examine your claims. Whether it's more useful is debatable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basing a public accusation of forgery based on only one feature is, as I have said, an ill-advised action. To do so without having the coin in hand, or being able to undertake any sort of testing would be foolhardy. I give the data, generally, as examples of things which should arouse suspicion and further investigation. My little series had two purposes: to show that things labelled forgeries can be found to be genuine, and that things labelled genuine can be found to be forgeries. It also gives means by which the truth of the matter might be obtained.

      The evidence of the way the letters were cut was stated. To refute that evidence, examples of demonstrably genuine coins with the same fault should be provided. Until that happens it must remain as an opinion.

      Delete
  5. Hi John,

    As a general rule, I only condem coins under two conditions:

    1) a respected dealer or researcher has seen and condemned the coin (so I'm only relaying the information). In these cases, the coin is usually already well-known as a fake

    2) I have seen and studied the coin in detail and can describe WHY it is a fake

    This can get expensive, so I try not to do too much of it.

    It usually takes me three months to prove a deceptive piece is a fake.

    Serious researchers need to assemble their own "Black Cabinet" for reference. It's important to have fakes on hand for future reference. If you send the fakes back to the sellers, you wind up with nothing to study, nothing to help you improve your authentication skills.

    Celtic fakes produced in the last 20 years as so good you now need a stereo microscope to detect them - you can't do it with a 14X Hastings Triplet any more. A loupe only lets you see in two dimensions - the newer fakes need you to see in three. Hence the stereo microscope

    Hope this helpful,

    Bob Van Arsdell.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Bob,

    Great stuff, and very helpful to everyone, I'm sure.

    For anyone who missed it in part one of this series, Bob's articles on coin forgeries are listed in clickable links:

    http://pasttimesandpresnttensions.blogspot.ca/2016/02/celtic-coin-forgeries-part-one.html

    The Google deities do not allow me to use html or edit any comment on Blogger.

    Best,

    John

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Bob,

    Great stuff, and very helpful to everyone, I'm sure.

    For anyone who missed it in part one of this series, Bob's articles on coin forgeries are listed in clickable links:

    http://pasttimesandpresnttensions.blogspot.ca/2016/02/celtic-coin-forgeries-part-one.html

    The Google deities do not allow me to use html or edit any comment on Blogger.

    Best,

    John

    ReplyDelete