Matthew J. Champion writes::
>>Replicas can be convincing. As someone who has worked with a variety of
>>companies and national and international museums to create replicas I can
>>assure you that not every replica will be spotted in fifty years time. This
>>may have been the case in times past but not today.
>>I'm sure that the same statement will be made by replica makers and fakers
>>in another fifty years ;-)
>A bold statement by both of us. However, it is always worth remembering that
>the best fakers and forgery, and their forgeries, have probably never been
>discovered. Forgers only tend to come to the authorities attention when they
>are caught. The best may never be caught and their work never discovered. An
Indeed! There have been cases where genuine paintings were condemned as
fakes because of a comparison made with other works that later turned out
to be forgeries themselves.
I am still rather concerned with the British B2 staters, they have been
condemned as fakes because of their high zinc content, but this might just
mean that they were a late issue that used Roman orichalcum in the alloy.
They are a die linked series of quite a number of dies and what bothers me
most is that the alloy is of variable compostion one coin to another, just
like genuine Celtic gold.. If the forgers were crafty enough to create this
elaborate subterfuge, why did they not use bronze instead of brass as one
part of the alloy? Then they would have got away with it and we would
believe that B2 was a local issue. It is a conundrum. They do not show the
usual weak area of striking that can be seen in B1 staters and other Celtic
gold, but this might be a feature of the alloy in combination with striking
practices. A better testing technique might put my mind at rest.
Hooker & Perron, Total Project Coordination
Database-Web...Graphics...Custom Maps...Colour Suites...Expert Systems
Building the Celtic Coin Index on the Web: