This is a noob thread. So pardon the quality of it. On forvm’s section of fake, two fakes of Theodosius II are labeled as cast but I think the metal flaw on them suggest that they are actually struck. I thought that metal flaw meant they are struck because of friction, but it apparently appears that casting also can create metal flaw. So can one explain me or provide me a link to how one can see whether a coin is cast or struck? When I say “metal flaw” I am thinking of the small lines which stands side by side, look eventual at the image number 3 with white notion. Are Forvm mistaken when they atribute them as "cast"?
If the authentic host coin has these flow lines, so will the resulting cast copies. The two coins shown have the same flan shape and there are enough exact matching elements that it is not possible for them to be authentic struck coins.* The top coin has visible "casting pearls". *Edited to add that is possible (although very unlikely) to find a pair in which one is the authentic coin that served as host to the cast copy, but doesn't seem to be the case for this pair.
Both of those coins have the soft, mushy features of casts. If you see lots of detail, but it all looks out of focus, that's a pretty good indication of a cast. As TIF said, the originals had some metal flow lines from striking, and those lines got transferred to the molds, but they are also mushy.
Those coins appear struck not cast. Also see Post#2. A decent cast will pick-up the metal flow found on the genuine coin it was made from. Problem is, metal flow from striking occurs in various stages depending on many factors. In authentication, using high magnification, a struck coin usually will have very fine flow lines that cannot be readily transferred. Unfortunately for collectors, decades ago when the first poorly struck counterfeits were appearing, many experts claimed they were casts, and much of this misinformation persists to this day! EDIT: If FORVM (whatever that is) has the coins in hand and finds a seam around the edge or finds typical "casting crystallization" ("spider web") I'll stand corrected.
An observation. I know that it doesn't address the O.P.'s question, but, the 'plumage' atop the helmet of the reverse image in the two photos (red and green), looks totally different (to me). While they may (or may not be) 'cast' with this 'difference' can they be from the same mold?
The reverse helmet's "plumage" looks the same to me. The rotation of the image is different, the lighting is different (which can make a substantial difference in look), the angle of the shot is different, and the focus different. Taking those things into account probably explains your perception.
Usually coins struck from fake dies will vary in centering while casts tend to show consistent centering unless they are trimmed or tooled to make them look different. Tooling to make things look different or clean up little problems is not rare. These three are obvious casts. I can understand if you doubt that seeing just one, but the likelihood of finding three struck coins all that exact shape with the exact flow lines is quite remote (approaching 0). I am regularly amazed at 'experts' who declare a coin to be a cast and then go on to say the style is wrong. Casts duplicate the style of the original from which they were molded so they must be saying that the coins are double fakes being casts made from struck fakes. These do exist since making cast fakes of an expensive coin requires having access to a genuine original. Starting with a fake is cheaper. You can not say a coin is genuine just because it has signs of being struck not cast. There are some really fine fakes being struck from hand cut original fake dies which capture the original style with varying degrees of success or are made mechanically from genuine coins. Recently CNG sold what I considered a great fake. https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=311509 The fake, original dies by early 1800's master forger Carl Becker of the rare usurper Pacatian were used to overstrike a genuine Roman denarius. The coin spent 1800 years as a genuine coin before it went over to the really dark side for the last 200. I did not buy it but I'm not saying I think the buyer made a mistake. I doubt the coins in this thread will be at all cool in 200-2000 years but I could be wrong.
Only by people who have never seen fake dies like Beckers, Slaveys, Lipanoffs and thousands of independent die cutters over a period of 2000+ years. Being struck is just one of several factors to consider.
Note: You claimed that: @dougsmit YOU ARE CORRECT. I forgot about die struck ancient coins. Besides most counterfeit coins are NOW die struck too. If a counterfeit is die struck, an authenticator MUST know what the die struck genuine coin looks like. The vintage US and foreign coins I collect are a lot easier to authenticate than ancients.
