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

  Pscipio 14. Oct. 2010, 16:22

A fake from modern dies of wrong style; surfaces and flan are wrong in hand as well. A coin from the same dies was recently offered on eBay by a well-known fake seller.
  Pscipio 14. Oct. 2010, 16:20

A fake from modern dies of wrong style. Similar coins have been sold on eBay by fakesellers (for pictures, see: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=42193.0 ).
  Pscipio 28. Sept. 2010, 20:23

This is a fake from modern dies, the style is completely wrong for Caracalla at Serdika and moreover, the reverse scene has been changed to make it more eye-catching. A genuine example can be seen here: http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=87405 (no Penis, of course)
  Purzel 14. Sept. 2010, 13:33

Der normale J.137 ist ja mit 1000(200 in PP) Exemplaren schon sehr rar.
Kennt jemand die genaue Auflage dieser Variante ?
  WelfVI 14. Sept. 2010, 11:25

Hallo Walker,

selbstverständlich kann "Heinrich I. von Bilversheim, 1242-1257" nicht stimmen.
Albert von Wertheim (1398-1421) ist korrekt.

Viele Grüße
Welf
  Pscipio 11. Sept. 2010, 09:06

This is a fake from modern dies regularly showing up lately. The style is way off.

Lars Rutten
  Pscipio 8. Sept. 2010, 08:22

This Siglos is genuine but in fact a silver coin, the colour was changed to gold by a software error.

The coin was consequently withdrawn from the auction.
  Walker 5. Sept. 2010, 20:31

Hallo,

diesen Pfennig hab ich letztens selber gesucht und bin auch fündig geworden, aber im Saurma-Jeltsch/1267, dort wird der Pfennig unter Albert von Wertheim (1398-1421) geführt!
Ist das jetzt ein Irrtum von Lanz oder von Saurma?
Persönlich würd ich eher zu A. v. Wertheim dentieren,
da mir dieses Münzbild besser in diese Zeit passt!
Danke im voraus.

Grüsse Walker
  cebolar 2. Sept. 2010, 15:47

Dieser Westgote wurde mittlerweile als Fälschung erkannt, und von RUTH PLIEGO VELASQUEZ in LA MONEDA VISIGODA unter der Nummer 1234 b1 veröffentlicht.
  Iotapianus 23. Aug. 2010, 11:33

This coin was mailed by CNG to me, but never arrived. It was claimed and confirmed as a loss in the mail.

So, if this coin should turn up for sale, it is either stolen or embezzled; in this case the offer should be reported to CNG immediately. I would appreciate if you would inform me, too.

Thank you for your awareness

Iotapianus
  gibfrog 15. Aug. 2010, 16:34

this is a modern Slavey fake. Compare to Modern Forgeries of Greek & Roman Coins, 1997, Prokopov, page 16, plate 32

http://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=0i2PQXrODfc=
  gibfrog 15. Aug. 2010, 16:33

This is a doctored modern Slavey. See Modern Forgeries of Greek & Roman Coins, Prokopov 1997 Obv plate 35, Rev Plate 33.

http://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=x5flQFTg97s=
  Lech_Stepniewski 5. Aug. 2010, 18:46

This is not RIC VII SISCIA 244 var. but RIC VIII SISCIA 4.

Not Constantine I but Constantine II.
  helcaraxe 10. June 2010, 19:45

I think the attribution of this coin is debatable. I doubt whether it is truly a different obverse inscription with a missing I of COS III.

I rather think it is the lower front end of the bust which has merged with the last I.
  Euthydemos 7. June 2010, 09:26

Bei der Heliokles Tetradrachme aus CNG E-Sale 133, Lot 122, handelt es sich um eine sog. Utmanzai-Fälschung ("Utmanzai Coins" by Shortt in Numismatic Chronicle 1963, Seite 11-36), die von CNG bereits in der Mail Bid Sale 54, Lot 1013, in 06/2000 für $ 1.410.oo verkauft wurde und dann zurückgegeben worden war.
Sie wurde dann fünf Jahre später erneut in den Verkauf gegeben (E-Sale 133)(ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt) - und - von mir als Ersteigerer - erneut zurückgegeben.
  Lech_Stepniewski 30. May 2010, 15:28

The attribution "RIC 79 (Büstenvariante)" is wrong. In fact, it is RIC VII AQUILEIA 111.
  Lech_Stepniewski 29. May 2010, 12:33

The coin is indeed unlisted in RIC, but was minted at Rome, not at Arles! There is "PR" in exergue and the style is apparently Roman.

Should be listed in RIC VI after ROMA 286.
  cepasaccus 28. May 2010, 19:53

Probably fake.

- withdrawn
- same dies as unsold/withdrawn coins
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=178412
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=62505
  cepasaccus 28. May 2010, 19:53

Probably fake.

- withdrawn
- same dies as unsold/withdrawn coins
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=3200
http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=62505