acsearch.info

Cookies must be activated for full functionality of this website.
Please follow the instructions on how to enable Cookies in your web browser.

Comments

  Amentia 17. Jan. 2019, 11:32

Possibly cast fake or mother of a cast fake!
Weight of this one is 14,99 and weight of almost identical piece is 14,24g
Weights of both are too low should be about 17,3g
Almost Identical piece (this one has an extra scratch right to the chin) can be found here.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2161597
  Amentia 17. Jan. 2019, 11:32

Possibly cast fake or mother of a cast fake!
Weight of this one is 14,24 and weight of almost identical piece is 14,99g
Weights of both are too low should be about 17,3g
Almost Identical piece (this one is missing the extra scratch right to the chin the other one has ) can be found here.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=283414
  numismarc 15. Jan. 2019, 20:18

This is a lot. The displayed coin is the last ('Mylasa, Caria, 3d- 2nd century BC, Bronze, horse right, rev M-Y trident, 1.59g (BMC 11; SNG Cop 422), nice green patina, very fine')
  Okidoki 15. Jan. 2019, 19:46

This is Strack 695 in ex. SPQR
Strack 660 has in ex. EX SC
  Hisham 14. Jan. 2019, 17:06

The displayed picture does not conform with explanation below
  siliquae 14. Jan. 2019, 06:52

Too heavy for RIC 133, it's a RIC 102 (351->355)
  siliquae 7. Jan. 2019, 15:46

Buste en D3 (diadème perles) -> RIC 77h
(pas 77i, qui lui est en D4)
  npolackw 3. Jan. 2019, 17:18

This coin is a cast fake.
  siliquae 3. Jan. 2019, 07:43

Exergue : C•Δ -> RIC 102(4)
  siliquae 3. Jan. 2019, 07:38

Not RIC 102 (heavy siliqua) but with this weight, RIC 133.
  siliquae 31. Dec. 2018, 06:58

CONSTANCE II
RIC 214
  Tejas554 30. Dec. 2018, 11:52

This is a modern fake. The style is terrible and the forger combined a Vandalic averse legend DN RX GVNTHA with a Gepidic Reverse.
  siliquae 23. Dec. 2018, 05:32

RIC 234 en fait car revers en VOT/MVLTIS.
La RIC 303 est en revers VOTIS/MVLTIS.
  cippal 23. Dec. 2018, 00:52
  CaptainMyCaptain 19. Dec. 2018, 10:18

This is Carlos III without doubt. But what is interesting about it, is now I can confirm that the legends do infact swap from obv to rev. on the C3 issues. Glad I found this. Wrong attribution, or photo not sure. Neat example of this series though.
  CaptainMyCaptain 17. Dec. 2018, 08:24

As I stated in the other listing for this issue, this is a 1627, Spain (Madrid?) issue, with the date stamped BACKWARDS by the die sinker. Nothing more. Take a look at any Spain Half Real, from 1627, and you will find they are identical. This is a coin that needs to be reclassified, and placed correctly into the region it was produced.
I will say however, that this coin, has that "Bogota" style cut, almost as if it was done on purpose, or is to good to be true.
Until I see documents stating that, Bogota took possession of 100 year old dies from Spain to produce half reales, my theory I believe is the best explanation for this issue - that being again, that, the date was simply placed backwards by mistake of the die sinker for a 1627 issue. It makes perfect sense. And, ALL the die elements match those 1627 issues, where they do not match to any issue of Colombia what so ever. Please, just look at Spain, Half Real issues of 1627 and really look at the elements. Then look at a genuine Nuevo Reino. ½ real issue of 1726. They are very very different. Not so rare, but, a coin that is very cool and unique for, I do not know of any other coin like this, where the date was stamped backwards in such a way, that it was though to be a coin that was produced 99 years later. So it has a special place, but not in Colombian issues.
  CaptainMyCaptain 17. Dec. 2018, 07:29

This issue is NOT Colombia. I have debated and talked about this coin now for a long time with others. And my theory is actually very simple. It is, a 1627 issue, of Spain, with the date rendered backwards. Thats it. Take a look at any 1627, Spain 1/2 Real issue. They are identical in every way. Same exact monogram, same flower ornaments left and right of the monogram, same lions, castles, crowns and very importantly, exact same numeral punches in the date. Now, if you look at an issue from Spain, dated 1627
https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2124410
you'll note, some show the lions and castles transposed. Some do not. Is is that far fetched to say, that, this issue simply had its date rendered backwards? I do not think so at all. What is 1726 backwards? 1627.....
Also, the true NR issues of 1726 are VASTLY different. They show an F left of a typical Colombian Monogram for Philip IV-V. A large cross over head, and the assayer S right, with 627 below in very different style of numerals. The cross, flanked again by the mint and assayer, with small x ornaments above and below the cross. The two known die types for NR, showing typical Colombian style lions and castles, while this issue seen here, sold most often as Lima? or Potosi?, and twice now as Colombia, are very very different.
The monogram of this issue, the V stops short of the horizontal bar, the monogram is flanked by two roses, or flower ornaments. No assayers, no mint marks as the Colombian issues DO have.
Yes sir, I do believe that my theory for this issue, is 100% correct. That it is, actually a 1627 issue with the date stamped in backwards by the die sinker. It is rare enough and unique enough as is. But not as rare as the true Colombian issues.
Please do go search the 1627 Spain issues and compare. Same lions, same castles, etc.

Again, here is a link to get you started. Blow this one up, same with the Cayon listing of the same coin, and compare to this old Spain issue here https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2124410
Then do a search for Colombia 1726 issues. You should only find two types. One with a solid line border around the monogram, one with dots / pellets. Very very different. You will not find one thing that matches on those issues to this issue.
Happy collecting. Study those elements! It is VERY important!
  euainetos 7. Dec. 2018, 10:15

FORGERY - FAKE COIN. Not struck. Short flan, weight too low. Bad details.
  errataprobi 25. Nov. 2018, 04:44

This is an unlisted variant of RIC 666, Alföldi 23.-, which occurs with CONCORDIA MILIT & CONCORDIA MILITVM, p. 89.

RIC 653 is listed exclusively with CONCORD MILIT, p. 87.

Alföldi only lists this bust from officinae T, and VII, so this coin's exact combination is not published.
  Emilio 22. Nov. 2018, 22:27

Recte: Berend 10.27 (D4 bis/R4) - this coin
Because the die # D4 was reengraved by adding the small barley grain behind the young Anapos
  Emilio 22. Nov. 2018, 22:12

Pedigree:
Berend 10.27 (D4/R4) - this coin
Ex Bank Leu 48, 1989, lot 69
Ex MuM 37, 1968, lot 125
Ex Hess-Leu, 1954, lot 70
Ex Ars Classica XVII, 1934, lot 232
  Bacon 20. Nov. 2018, 22:56

Ex Auction 15 Palombo , lot 105, officially sold for 11,000 Swiss Francs in 2016 (https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3417826 )
One further example of the reappearance of the same coin in different subsequent auctions over a relatively short period.
In this case, I cannot fully appreciate the value of re-selling the same item two years later with a loss of US $ 4,500 ( plus hammer premium, plus customs duties, plus VAT, plus shipping costs), save that it was a matter of need , or such kind of operations are closer to a theater play rather than real market.
The world changes rapidly, even in numismatics, who knows...
  rorey36 18. Nov. 2018, 18:31

Fake
IBSCC - ID 2220
  rorey36 18. Nov. 2018, 18:29

Fake.
IBSCC - ID 2220
  rorey36 18. Nov. 2018, 18:28

Fake
IBSCC- ID 2220