But so far, GingisK, no attempt to re-create the Shroud of Turin has been successful in duplicating all the features that must be met to qualify as a true recreation. None. . . and there have been literally hundreds of attempts in the past 120 years by artists, forgers, scientists, photographers, and others in many disciplines. Not a single one has been successful. To say it can’t be faked, can be scholarly, if no one can do so successfully. You’ve constructed a false equivalence.
And you missed my point. The coin is a very small part of the overall evaluation, but let’s focus on it: a medieval forger decides that having a coin over the eye would be a nice touch. There in 14th century France, he happens to Know what a “wizard’s augur” coin which we now definitively know was minted during Pilate’s term as Procurator would look like, so he fakes one and uses it. We know from numerous examples that Pilate’s coins on the whole were poorly minted. Somehow the coin he faked is a replica of a subset (of which we have other extant examples today) that has a misspelling in the abbreviated name of the emperor. Even setting aside the issue of how advanced numismatics was in the Middle Ages (how would he know what he had?) all of this would need to be true in order for the coin image to be faked. FRiend, just slapping the “stuff can be faked” label on it doesn’t even come close to address this one little part of the overall constellation of issues with the shroud.