Would you knowingly buy a tooled coin?

I believe I see tooling in the obverse legend and possibly on the bust line. The reverse is beautiful, but, if I had to guess, I would say possible tooling on the figures to the left (I'm guessing).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It would appear to have been extensively if not completely retooled and there is serious doubt that the reverse was even of this type.

 

Creating or re-creating details that never were or are worn-out is going too far for me. Other than that I would consider "normal", if done in a reasonable and tasteful manner. A coin, especially an ae, that has never been in contact with any tool is most often called an "uncleaned".

 

To my eye, the obverse legend on this coin is a dead giveaway to the extensive tooling. Note the rut that runs the entire circumference underneath each letter on the obverse legend. This was engraved lower in order to make the lettering sharper. The emperor's name (Hadrian) is so aggressively re-engraved that it almost looks re-struck with a modern tool. Also, it's easy to see that the underlying field on which the obverse legend sits is much lower than the overall field on the obverse of the coin, which indicates that each individual letter likely had tooling.

The level of detail in Hadrian's hair seems much too sharp relative to the overall low relief of the image. The same is true of the fine details on the reverse -- in addition to the fairly clear tooling of the legend in exergue on the reverse, the individuals on the reverse seem much sharper than a low relief, circulated coin would permit.

Also on the reverse, note the clearly etched line above the legend "PONT MAX" that was engraved to make the edge of the coin stand out.

Sorry for the apparent harshness of my analysis. This is, at first glance, a VERY attractive coin but the amount of tooling just seems obvious and excessive.

 

I raised this as an example of very heavily tooled coins that are sold for several hundreds of dollars to unwary buyers. The tooling is so extreme that it is almost impossible to determine how much of the original coin (if any) remains.

There are several people who sell many such coins a week.

 

Let me introduce "Mr.Tooly"

 

i still highly suspect that coin to be a fake stevex.

if the price was right and the tooling didn't change the original design of the coin, sure, i probably would. but a counterstamped coin is kind of a tooled coin, and i like those....but i guess that doesn't count...or does it? :scratch:

 

The difference between using a tool to clean and using a tool to 'tool' need to be made. Cleaning removes material like deposits and corrosion but tooling goes deeper and removes metal selectively so detail that was removed is restored or replaced with something we wish were there.

My favorite tooled coin is this non-existent as of Pescennius Niger. I was sent the photo over 40 years ago but do not know the present location of the coin. I would make an exception and buy it if it were available at a reasonable price.


I find the Nerva made into an EF from a VG (or was it a VF?) a piece of trash. I'm sure I own tooled coins but I try to keep the count down by not buying more. I am particularly offended by the grading that says 'EF but tooled' when the coin required the tooling to have EF details. I believe the entire laurel wreath is added so the coin should never be called EF. Its value started where it was before tooling and went down, not up.

 

Here is a nice heavily tooled As for ya of Lucilla.



I wonder if the legend has been tooled as well and it's a different woman. If that is so, not sure what the original would be.

 

I hope my coin isn't considered as some sort of horrible abomination. Something like Mr. Tooly I'd be crazy to get rid of if I somehow ended up with one like it, but a very, very slightly tooled coin like my Trajan I can tolerate.

 

VK. I must admit that I find even that level of rework objectionable. I would prefer the original example without the off lines in the hair and a naturally worn laurel wreath. This is not resharpening into the patina but is eating into the metal.

 

For those who find "smoothing" acceptable. What do you think of the process of taking a pitted coin, filling the pits (fields, portrait etc.) with a product and then making these areas smooth to hide the pitting. This is often what is referred to as smoothing by some dealers, which is not just smoothing out adhesions.

Martin

 

I remember being very sad and embarrassed when I posted this coin and then dougsmit pointed-out that there is no acceptable amount of smoothing and tooling (I actually had to go look-up what smoothing and tooling were all about) ... ummm, but I still think this coin is pretty cool ...

Bosporian Kings, Sauromates I
- Implements of Battle –
Æ 48 Units
Date: circa 98-104 AD
Size: 27.94 mm
Weight: 9.49 grams
Obverse: TIBEPIOC IOYΛIOC BACIΛEYC CAYPOMATHC, Sauromates seated right on curule chair, holding sceptre tipped with the head of Trajan
Reverse: TEIMAI BACIΛEωC CAYPOMATOY, Round shield with spear, surrounded by battle axe, horse head, helmet, and sword in scabbard, mark of denomination (MH) below
Attribution: MacDonald 417
Description: A nice example with light tooling and smoothing typical for this issue

 

I can see no situation requiring adding material that is appropriate. This really seems the same thing as filling a hole and smoothing the wound. Such coins are collectible as examples of bad things done to good coins in the distant past but we should not encourage the practice by paying more for a fixed coin than we would have for it when the damage was openly admitted.

 

The question here is why this practice is typical for this issue. Is it that people in the region where these are found are comfortable in recreating cartoon like details on coins that were never fine art in the first place? When I look at the above coin do I see the state of skill of workers from 100AD or 2000?

 

yup, and there it is => I feel those same sad and embarrassed feelings comin' on again (*sigh*) ...



I must admit that it was an expensive lesson learned ... but since hearing those words the first time, I have tried my best "not" to buy any more coins that were smoothed and/or tooled (dougsmit, thanks for pointing-out this valuable lesson "early" in my ancient collecting career)

:thumb:

 

Exactly... My point being, in reference with the op, that I wouldn't consider 80-95% of the ae's shown in this forum to be "tooled" in this regard :yes:

 

Just to be clear, Im not in favor of tooling at all and would rather have the original surfaces, and was only refering to living with the coin after the damage has been done.

 

Unfortunately, it isn't a question of whether or not you or I, personally, "consider" a coin to be tooled. It's a question of detecting that tooling. A coin has either been re-engraved/tooled, or it hasn't. (I'm not including smoothing in my definition of tooling.)

And in reality, I can detect at least a small amount of tooling in almost every bronze that's posted here -- and I'm not even very skilled at detection. A real expert would probably think that almost all of the bronzes displayed here exhibit some amount of tooling, but I can't verify that suspicion.

 

I can't believe this, but, if it's really the case, then owning tooled coins is inevitable. Most of the coins displayed here are not the mega dollar coins where this kind of tooling is more likely. Eng just posted a thread with a Gordian III sestertius. I cannot imagine how this coin could have been tooled: http://www.cointalk.com/t227002/