A) Study of the Group and Pro/Contra Arguments :

1) Le style :

• The style of the group : One of the arguments formed on the US Forvm was that the style appeared to be the same for different periods of reign, mints and officinae and that the coins all appeared to come from the workshop of the same engraver. We examined the coins closely on the basis of style. Looking at the reverses of similar types, we can see by the pictures below that the faces of the persons depicted are not at all alike. They are clearly engraved in different styles, in accordiance with those of the workshops of the time, as we can see later on.

• The legends : The members of the forum claimed that the lettering of all the coins, from Constantine to Magnentius, appears to have been engraved by the same hand. Once again we examined the coins in detail, especially the different versions of the letter "R". The first letter in the photograph, with its triangular loop is very characteristic for Constantine bronzes struck in Arles. If you look at the same letter on a similar coin struck in Siscia, it is clear that the styles are different, a fact which does not at all support the idea that one engraver engraved all the coins.

We did find, on a coin of Constantine, struck in Arles, something particular at the beginning of the obverse legend. The legend is very straight, almost vertical and very slightly convex. This "fault" can be found on numerous coins from Arles which appears to show that these are coins engraved by the same artist. On these coins the emperor's eyebrows sometimes comprise of a line of dots. This is also seen on coins from the same workshop. On the other hand, we did not notice this characteristic for other workshops, nor for other periods of reign... The hypothesis therefore of the same engraver making all the coins is again false ! Note also, that we have received other coins whose source was the Arles mint, the authenticity of which is not in doubt, and which also show the same characteristic at the beginning of the obverse legend.

• The style of the coins: The coins all display a good style suiting the mint to which they are attributed. The portraits of the emperors correspond to those of other examples whose authenticity has never been doubted, and which have come from the same mints.

2) La frappe :

• There is no doubt at all that the coins were indeed struck (and not cast, for example).

• The flans : The flans have been critisized by some member of the American forum, as being too similar. The fact is, that the flans are quite similar but they also display all the characteristics of authentic flans. They are irregular, displaying microscopic cracks and appear absolutely genuine. Their diameters, thicknesses and weights are far from being constant.

Edges of different coins :

• Die matches : This point required particular attention but we were not able to go into the subject in depth.
  However, the experts from CGB, who studied almost one hundred examples, eighty of the coins examined had been struck with different dies. The 21 coins which we examined showed no die matches whatsoever.

3) The contents of the hoard :

• Number of dies, number of coins : According to the seller, if you take the obverses alone, the variety of legends, the types of bust (laureate, diademed, bare-headed, draped, cuirassed, draped and cuirassed) and calculate this together with the factor of the reverses, the different mints and officinae, officines, this would result in hundreds of different coins. We will add here that this corresponds well with our observations, and that if you add the type of different reverse types to the calculation, the total number is even higher. It is a real shame that no proper study appears to have been made of the hoard and that the exact number of coins contained in it is unknown.

• Imitations : The hoard contained some coins of the imitative type popularly known as "barbarics", but we have not had the chance to study them. Some die matches do occur for these imitations, something that is quite uncommon. This could be because these imitations were actually produced not far from where the hoard was found.

• Rare and interesting coins : The members of the American forum had noted that the hoard comprised, strangely enough, of rare or particularly interesting coins. We need to state here that common coins were also present in the hoard - presumeably in large numbers. Rarer coins from Arles seem to be frequent in the hoard, but this is not surprising considering the proximity of the Arles workshop to where the coins were discovered.

• Wear : First of all, even before we received the coins, the general condition of the coins appeared to be too exceptional. But when the coins arrived most of the coins were in fact in a normal state of conservation resp. of wear. The wear of these coins seem to correspond to their period of circulation and had not been artificially worn.

4) Patina :

• Here lies the heart of the debate. The green "patina" seems very artificial in the photos and appears close to the false patinas seen on copies of ancient coins. Most of us know the very naturally occuring brown patina on ancient bronze coins. The Forvm members claimed that this green patina did not exist in a natural state, but we are not satisfied with this claim. One thing that we believe is, that we can hardly imagine a counterfeiter using all his skill to make such perfect copies, and then to give them - instead of the much more realistic brown patina - this green colour, thus ruining his own work instead of giving them the final look of authenticity.
• Vertigris and crystals : crystals of verdigris adhere very strongly to some coins. We believe this would be extremely difficult to imitate!!!

• Coins before cleaning : The seller sent us a photo of a coin before it was cleaned. Being unaccustomed to this kind of patina, and not having the coin in hand, we will let you decide for yourselves :

• Pots : The seller also sent us photographes of two of the pots which contained the coins. The pots appear correct for the period, they contain traces of the coins and one coin was still attached, visible on one of the photographs. We have not examined the receptacles ourselves, however, and so cannot attest to their authenticity. However, we can state that one of the pots had been broken then stuck together again. This is also credible : usually, pots containing hoards are usually retrieved in a broken state, because the "working" of the coins as they join together and are subject to chemical changes of the earth, exert a strong pressure on the surrounding walls of the receptacle. The seller did not know that.

• Traces of silvering : Some members of the Forvm Ancient Coins have noted traces of silvering beneath the patina. We didn't notice any on the coins we studied. But note that this kind of silver would not be too difficult to imitate thanks to various products which allow cold-silvering. This point was therefore not too convincing.

5) The seller :

• Certain coins have been judged dubious by different Americans who all gave their opinions in an ever growning thread which, at the time of writing, covered 12 pages. One of their arguments was because the coins had all been sold by the same seller using the same ebay user name... But, let us ask ourselves this: If he was deliberately selling forgeries, would he keep the same user name year in, year out, knowing the furore he had caused and the amount of discussion and arguments his coins had triggered on both sides of the Atlantic ?

6) The opinion of the experts :

• Barry P Murphy, US numismatist of repute, having worked for 11 years at Classical Numismatic Group before opening his own coin store : Believes the coins to be fakes. We do not know whether he has examinged any coins in hand. Other members of the Forvm Ancient Coins, such as Jeff Clark, who specialises in coinage of the late Roman Empire, and Warren Esty have both condemned the coins as fakes.
• David Sear, famous numismatist, author of several numismatic books, received one of the Monnéron coins from a member of the American forum. David Sear delivered a certificate of authenticity for the coin.
• The British Museum : has examined 12 coins ( 8 official strikes and 4 "barbaric" imitations). The eight official types were all declared to be authentic. As far as the barbaric imitations go, they found no signs that these were modern copies and their fabric and style were judged to be absolutely compatible with ancient coins. The imitations they examined were however either unknown varieties or unpublished apart from one coin of the group which was viewed as being authentic.
• CGB : The French experts from CGB, Laurent Schmitt and Michel Prieur have examined these coins and conclude that they are authentic. A number of these coins were included in CGB's Sale No. 24 and Laurent Schmitt wrote an article (in French) on page 10 of in CGB's bulletin numismatique N° 12.

7) profitability :

• As we have already shown, it appears evident that the coins are genuine, but let's imagine for a moment that they are the products of the workshop of a forger genius whose knowledge of the money of ancient Rome is perfect and in particular of those produced by the Arles and Lyons mints ... The income from such a production would not make much sense than it would from a country where the manpower is much less expensive... which is certainly not the case in France where the greatest specialists of those original coins are. A country such as Bulgaria or another Eastern European country would be a more logical source of such modern copies because the number of experts on 4th century Roman coins is lower in those countries. Even in Bulgaria, there is little research in ancient coins. We know that they are imitated but is there a team who has been willing to forfeit such a huge expenditure of energy and learning, to study in depth the production of various ancient mints and so to attain such in depth perfection? In fact, several identical types were struck using different dies. Is it credible to engrave several dies to strike two seemingly identical, low priced coins ? We have seen that several hundreds of engraved dies would have been required. The considerable time and energy required would seem more appropriate for high value coins, than for the common bronzes of the 4th century.

B) Conclusions :

If anyone had doubts purely from seeing photographes and scans shown on the Forvm Ancient Coins, these doubts would be dispelled on seeing the coins in hand and examining them in person. If they are modern copies, then we have held, in our hands, the work of the best forger of our time ! We would be holding the most incredible forgeries that have ever appeared on the market, all the more remarkable because they would be forgeries of often common and low priced coins. Our opinion is that the coins are absolutely authentic. We thank the seller, Monnéron, for willingly placing coins at our disposal in order to shed light on this strange affair.

Frederic Weber, October 2005.

C) Liens :

CGB : Bulletin 12 : http://www.cgb.fr/bn/pdf/bn012.pdf

Constantine the great : http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/monneron/monneron.html

Victor Clark's Discussion Board : http://victorclark.proboards55.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1128041484

Yahoo group : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoinForgeryDiscussionList/message/8599

Return

.......................................................

Thanks to Helvetica for the translation