Alexander the Great fourree stater,
5.7g (compared with about 8.6g for an official Alexander gold stater), copy of posthumous stater from Greece or
Macedonia, c. 310-275 BC, M.J. Price 831.
This piece has small cracks in the gold plating that are somewhat visible in photo but are better seen in person.
Its weight indicates that the base metal core is likely bronze or perhaps a copper-lead alloy. It copies Price
831 fairly realistically.
Alexander fourree staters are known to have been created using two methods, with gold foil or gold leaf. With the
first, thin sheets of gold foil were wrapped around the planchet, burnished down, and hammer into place. With the
second, thinner gold leaf, perhaps in multiple layers, was applied and burnished down or applied over a mercury
solder and heated, burning off the mercury. In either case, the gold plating is thought to have been applied to
the blank planchet before striking.
Alexander the Great fourree stater,
5.1g.
This piece has large breaks in the gold plating as well blistering due to corrosion of the interior bronze. The
styling is somewhat barbarized, particularly Athena's nose.
Alexander the Great Thracian barbarous fourree stater, 9.1g, copy of possible lifetime stater from Amphipolis, Macedonia, c. 330-320
BC, M.J. Price 172 (this coin is also pictured on the previous page of this site).
From the blocky rather than curvilinear styling, this "barbarous imitation" was likely made by a Thracian
rather than a Celtic tribe. At 9.05g, this piece is overweight and undoubtedly has a lead interior in addition
to it being slightly larger than official Alexander staters. I intended to buy this piece when it was sold by a
major auction house but missed the auction. It sold there for $365. The French person who bought it put it up on
eBay, and I bought it there for $202. Dumb luck. The French seller honored the transaction.
I've learned that the authenticity of this piece, as an ancient piece, was questioned on several grounds within
the auction house before it deemed the piece to be ancient and sold it as such. I've studied this piece as well
as investigating the literature related to gold fourrees, and I also believe it to be ancient.
The piece was questioned, first, because it's coated with thin gold foil rather than thicker gold plating, with
the foil partly loose in a small area near the rim on the obverse at 7:30, best seen in person. But this isn't
conclusive because though not typical some ancient Greek-era gold fourrees were covered in thin gold foil, sometimes
in multiple layers, instead of thicker gold plating. Second, the piece doesn't show evidence of either encrustations
or the removal or them, but I don't believe that with gold that this is conclusive either. Third, the piece was
obtained by CNG from a Bulgarian middleman, but this also isn't conclusive, as not all coins sold by Bulgarian
middlemen, or by Bulgarian eBay sellers, are forgeries (relatively few are).
Alexander the Great fourree tetradrachm,
13.9g (compared with about 17.0g for authentic specimens), copy of posthumous tetradrachm from Amphipolis, Macedonia,
c. 315-294 BC, M.J. Price 486.
The large breaks in the silver plating, exposing the underlying copper/bronze, give this piece away. This fourree
is particularly interesting in that it shows all three layers of a silver-plated fourree. The orange is the bronze
core, while the green is the "eutectic" layer separating the silver plating from the bronze core and
is believed to consist of about 72 percent silver and 28 percent copper.
It's unclear whether with fourrees like this the eutectic layer was a hard silver and copper solder applied to
help bond the silver plating to the copper core or was formed when the silver-plated planchet was heated, partially
melting and interdiffusing the silver and copper. In either case, the plating is thought to have been applied to
the planchet before the coin was struck -- otherwise the details of the design would have been compromised.
Alexander the Great fourree tetradrachm,
10.6g.
The silver plating has completely corroded off this fourree. Fourrees today can have all of their plating intact,
some of it, or none of it. The corrosive forces can come from within or without. Chemicals in the soil, water,
and air (chlorides, sulfates and sulfides, carbonates, oxides, silicate, acids, and so on) can corrode the plating
from the outside, and chemical-laden moisture and gasses seeping under the plating can further corrode it from
the inside.
Alexander the Great barbarous fourree tetradrachm, 14.4g (this coin is also pictured on the previous page of this site).
This specimen exhibits a large break in the silver plating on the obverse in the tufts of the lion scalp, exposing
the underlying copper/bronze, and smaller breaks on the reverse under Zeus' throne.
The degraded globularized legend most gives this piece away as tribal coinage. The round ends of letters are characteristic
of imitative coins. This came about through the use of a bow drill, which the die cutter used to define the boundaries
of the letter. Then he played connect the dots with a graver. The more skilled the die cutter, the less obvious
the boundary dots. Barbarized coins struck by tribal peoples are often very globularized.
Alexander the Great fourree drachm,
3.0g (compared with about 4.2g for authentic specimens), copy of posthumous drachm from Kolophon, Ionia, Asia Minor,
c. 310-301 BC, M.J. Price 1827.
This piece exhibits medium-size breaks in the plating on the obverse, with the green of the underlying bronze exposed.
Alexander the Great fourree drachm,
3.1g, copy of posthumous drachm from Sardes, Lydia, Asia Minor, c. 323-319 BC, M.J. Price 2637
This piece exhibits a very large break in the plating on the obverse.
Alexander the Great test-cut fourree drachm, 3.7g.
This piece exhibits two test cuts, one causing a crack into the center of the flan, revealing the brown and tiny
specks of green of the bronze interior.
Alexander the Great barbarous fourree drachm, 3.4g (this coin is also pictured on the previous page of this site).
This ancient counterfeit, which has a blundered inscription, was likely struck by a Thracian tribe outside the
Greek world. Another possibility is that it was struck by an illiterate counterfeiter within it. It exhibits breaks
in the plating on the reverse. Along with being corroded, it's also worn, indicating it circulated.
Alexander the Great fourree hemidrachm,
1.6g (compared with about 2.1g for authentic specimens)
This piece exhibits a large break in the plating on the obverse and smaller breaks near the center and along the
rim of the reverse.
Here are other pages of mine on Ancient Fourree Counterfeits.