Akragas fake recently listed on auction + fakes from the same modern transferred dies listed in recent years.

Recently listed on auction, gone unsold… Caveat Emptor!
Collectors comment: “a shoddy fake
Source: http://www.lamoneta.it/topic/148245-bronzi-siciliani-da-valutare-parte-ii/


Akrafake l


EDIT 21/05/16

Edits based on this discussion from cointalk forum, where a member (Theodosius) shared his new acquisition, purchased by a reputable VCoins seller:

Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies VCoins.jpg

Here the original listing by the US seller Pars Coins:

akr fak parscoins.jpg


The first who raised a red flag was member Ancientnut, who noted:

“I welcome comments from other members, but I feel obligated to point out to you, Theodosius, that your coin, although covered with a heavy patina, would appear to be from the same dies as this example condemned as a fake:

This was my comment on the coin in question:

Good evening all,
I was privately called by an user of this forum to post my opinion on this thread.
The coin posted here by Theodosius IMHO is a forgery, struck on a genuine ancient flan by modern fake dies probably obtained by transferring and reworking an original type from a genuine host coin. This type variant was a great rarity indeed, until ten years ago: only three specimens were known according to Calciati (CNS vol.III p.174). Starting 2006 many more specimens appeared on the market, all forgeries struck by fake dies, that the forger improved over time, especially the obverse where (like the sample posted by Theodosius shows) there was at first a ridiculous rendering of the eagle’s eye and beak, resembling a pigeon, and errors in epigraphy.
Beyond stylistic matters, I will not clearly explain in details why they all are fakes, because disclosing too much technical informations is the best way to help forgers to improve their infamous work. But let’s play a sort of quiz… try to sharpen your observation and spot at least one problem by yourself… in particular, there is an obvious detail screaming “Transferred die, forgery!”, a detail that could not in any way recur, but we can see it on Theodosius’ sample and on the five specimens I link here…”

The first to note the problem was Prof. Eric Kondratieff:

“it appears that each example all have the same corrosion pit in the midsection of the Triton”

Following a gallery of samples struck from the same fake transferred dies:

Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies Busso Peus 410-35Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies Ira and Larry 80-324Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies Kunker 216-113Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies ACR 6-147.jpg

this one shows the same obverse “pigeon” die of the first two samples published in this post (Kunker E39-16 and Pars Coins item PCW-G5186)…

Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 fake dies catawiki varus.jpg


Here the sellers’ listings showing prices realized:

:akr fak acrakr fak bussoakr fak iraakr fak kunk

akr fake cata.jpg


This may be the host coin for the transferred fake dies:




This is a genuine specimen, CNS plate coin:

CNS iii 174 32:1 die break

…recently auctioned:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2156630 (GENUINE)

Akragas ae emilitra triton buccinum CNS III.174.32 Gorny 224-46 GENUINE Calciati plate coin!!.jpg

Lipara fake recently sold on auction. GRIECHISCHE MÜNZEN

liparafake imgA modern fake has recently been sold by the German auction house Fritz  Rudolf Künker GmbH.

The coin was struck by modern fake dies (likely transferred) on a real ancient flan of Akragas. This is an “impossible” coin from a metrological point of view (5.94 g), the types should be for the tetras (8 known specimens according to Calciati, weights from 1.60 to 2.83 g).

Experts comment: “They have never seen a genuine one, neither sellers nor buyers. The akragantine flan is unconsistent with the coinage of Lipara.” Continue reading “Lipara fake recently sold on auction. GRIECHISCHE MÜNZEN”