Bought a Nero with "Green surfaces". Code for fake patina?

Hi All,

I bought this Nero dupondius recently at auction.

The dealer advertised it as having "green surfaces" though in their photos the "surfaces" appeared strictly brown. This did not bother me as I have become familiar with their photography and their colours never match what the coin looks like in hand.

I received the coin in the mail today. I believe it has been re-patinated and possibly restored in places. It has that smell which re-patinated / patched up coins seem to have as well as an odd texture. I don't know what chemical gives it that smell but I first experienced it when I bought an expensive Nero Sestertius about 12 years ago only to return it after realising that its pits had been filled in and then fully coated in fake patina. I have never forgotten that smell. Does anyone know what I am talking about or does this sound mad?

Here is the coin. Your opinions are sought on whether you agree the patina is fake, and whether I need to accept that a reference to "surfaces" is code for "fake patina" in future.

[Edit: the photo above is mine, not the dealer's. Problems with the patina / restoration is more evident from viewing my photo]

Peter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You're right to be concerned. Check out this previous thread on CoinTalk:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an...ious-ancient-bronze-coin-manipulation.294241/

The problem isn't really the possibility of a fake green patina; rather, it's the possibility that the fake patina was used to cover up filling and patching of the surface.

It's my understanding that acetone will remove the patina and filler; this will expose the artificial enhancement.

Can others with more experience chime in here?

 

I hope those who responded to the link IOM provided will chime in soon. Personally, I haven't run across any coin purchase(s) with the 'smell' you mention but now I find I have another concern to be aware of.

 

Anyone answering a question on patina authenticity from a photo, even a good one, is making assumptions one way or the other. I suggest investing in a Sear certificate or other experts whose opinion you have more reason to trust than ours. Perhaps the smell is the solvent the last owner used to check the paint/patina question. Acetone does not linger long. WD40, turpentine and heaven knows what else people do to their coins might last longer.

If you ask Sear/NGC for a sniff test, is there an additional cost? If I were paying anyone for such expertization services, I would specify up front that I was submitting specifically for review of the patina. The question I might ask you is whether you feel you can sell the coin to someone else with clear conscience or whether you would feel better with 'papers'.

 

send it off

 

I agree with Dougs assesment.
I have more than a few coins with a green patina and I don't believe any to be fake.

Maybe I should start sniffing my coins

 

Those chips in the patina where you can see the underlying bronze make it seem like an original patina.

Rennwax leaves a lingering smell as the solvents in it evaporate. Smells like turpentine. I use it to preserve antique swords, for which it is very good. I don't put it on coins. Your coin looks shiny in the photo, which could indicate Rennwax.

Send it to David Sear if you are worried about it.

John

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the coin from the photo alone. Nothing underhanded is obvious. It pretty clearly has been treated with something, most likely ren wax or Dellers Darkener (Dellers will leave a strong odor). There is nothing wrong with either situation to me. Looks like a nice coin. I would have no problems with it.

However, many CT members here advocate dipping coins into acetone in order to see if there is anything underhanded going on. Dont do it. In many cases it may do as much as destroy the coin, and one that may never have been tampered with.

 

"surfaces" is a codeword for false patina, alright - e.g.: http://www.ancients.info/forums/showthread.php?t=549&page=2

 

I purchased such a coin also. It was not a Nero but it did have a green waxy appearance that was not evident to me in the dealer photo. In hand it caused me to question the patina's authenticity. @IdesOfMarch01 is right on with his comment! I submerged the coin in acetone and the solvent gradually turned green. I suspect that it was a fake patina coated with Renaissance Wax. After the acetone treatment the coin had a natural bronze appearance but surface scratches from poor tooling were visible. I kept the coin for reference purposes. I'd photograph it but my camera and macro photography skills are limited.

Note: The coin was not purchased from any of our CoinTalk ancients forum members.

 

Thank you for your opinions.

The smell is different to renaissance wax, which I have used in the past for coins which I have cleaned from uncleaned lots.

I do not think it is acetone type smell. I do not know what the materials people use to patch up coins which have damage / pitting but that is what it smells like to me - like those coins which I have owned which have been"patched up". It is not a metallic smell which most coins smell like to me.

I should have stated in my original post that the patina in hand looked suspect. Its visual appearance prompted closer scrutiny.

I cannot presently sell the coin with a clear conscience until I clear up some facts about it. Whilst the coin does not look like it has been tooled to me, all bets are off if it has had restorative work and fake patina which can mask underlying defects and tooling.

Re selling, I bought this coin for my personal collection. I am not a coin dealer and I doubt even 50 years of collecting like you would give me even half the experience you hold. But as has been my practice whenever I have collected coins, I list my personal collection for sale in case anyone is interested - to try and limit overall capital invested and encourage a level of rotation, but always at the risk of seller's regret (the Temnos tetradrachm of my avatar being one of them!). It also reassures my family that I have a vehicle to sell my collection if I need to. So if I am not happy with a coin, it does not make my personal catalogue. I have some coins which are sitting in storage still because I hold reservations about their authenticity.

I have written back to the dealer with my photos and asked them to confirm whether they agree with my assessment or not. The dealer is very reputable and I have not had a problem with them in the past so am interested to see what their response will be.

Peter

 

very good sir!

 

very good sir!

 

Basically I would want to know if the dealer/auction house is reputable and willing to 'fix' the problem IF there is a problem. I would have the coin checked if I had any doubts. Of course it all depends how much the coin cost me in the first place.

 

Bronze coins...........a minefield IMO. Before I bought my first coin, I saw all the issues that bronzes have and thought, not for me. However, that was not entirely realistic, so I have bought 5 bronzes over the years.

I bought 3 from dealer stock. These were roman bronzes and I wanted to be able to return them if they ended up being sketchy. The other two I bought through auction. One because it was only $85 (My dirhem) and the Ptolemy because I was very confident that it had natural surfaces.

I have stuck to silver and a couple gold because they have far fewer issues....although we now know that these are also being doctored by pro's.

I have seen the arguments for and against 'preserving' and/or 'patinating' bronzes. I decided to avoid the metal whenever possible....for my own piece of mind. I don't care how well the end result looks, if it has filled pits and epoxy holding together a corroded edge, then to me, it is not what I want in a coin.

It sounds like you don't want that either. Going forward, you might want to change how you purchase bronzes (auction vs dealer stock) or avoid them....like I said.....minefield.

 

Totally understandable response to the roman imperial bronze market. I suppose it was in spite of all those reasons that I focus my roman imperial collection exclusive on bronze. The attraction to aged bronze is just too strong for me, no other metal has the life and warmth IMHO, but you are correct in that the market is a minefield, I pass on 99% of what I see.

 

To the OP, I would say if you have the ability to return the coin then do so. If you have these kinds of questions now, they are unlikely to go away. In my personal experience, when my initial response to a coin is uncertain or suspicious it rarely improves with time.

I can't speak to the patina on that coin, but I want to make a more general point with bronze coins. There is a difference, in my opinion, between a coin that has been re-patinaed via a chemical process that aids the natural process along, versus basically being painted. In the first situation, acetone will not remove the patina, as the surface of the coin has been chemically altered, that is what patina is on bronze, however the second type often comes off in acetone. While I prefer original coins, I don't mind re-patined if done well, I avoid the latter kind.

I generally break bronze down into three categories. Untouched and unmolested coins. These are basically as found coins, with some/all of the surface dirt removed. They may or may not include noticeable cleaning marks as long as they are unobtrusive and minor. This represents a small set of roman imperial bronze and ones that I actively seek out. However, they often have lower 'eye appeal' to certain buyers because they show the effects of 2000 years of exposure, which I believe is why they are often 'touched up'. But as they say, it's only original once...



The next set of coins are ones that have not been tooled or smoothed, but the patina is not original. Either it was left in the stripped state, or was helped along in the patina process. As long as the eye appeal is good, and the price is right, I will purchase these. I don't mind coins which were stripped and then had chemicals applied to speed up patina process. The surface of bronze corrodes, leaving a protective surface we call patina. As long as the effort to re-patina the coin only did that, I don't mind. Here is a stripped coin:



And a repatina:


The last category of coins are the tooled, smoothed, painted, filled coins. In my opinion, this is the majority of sestertius in fair or high grades. I avoid the smoothed or tooled coins because they are no longer roman coins. I avoid the painted type repatina because it's also not natural and is often used to hide tooling and smoothing.

As an note, the sestertius of Maximinius above (Victoria Germanica) is from a collection where almost all the coins have the exact same dark brown/black patina. I am fairly sure they were all stripped of their original patina and had sulfur applied to repatina to this dark color. This is a fairly common practice for US large cent, another area this collector was active. I knew that prior to purchasing the coin although it wasn't disclosed. While my preference is for coins of the first type in my description, you can see in the comparision between the sestertius of Maximinius and Gordian III, why a lot of coins have had this type of treatment applied. The product of a harshly cleaned coin, where all the patina has been stripped, but also all the ugly surface contaminants have also been removed, and then a nice even, dark, stable patina has been achieved, can be quite nice. Again, compare this to the other Maximinius, I believe most would prefer the second coin over the first.

I believe when Wayne Sales, and others, point out that repatina is acceptable, and the market will dictate, they are taking about these two types of coins. Not about those that have been painted, filled, or otherwise modified.

 

Thank you for your responses. The dealer confirmed my suspicions about the patina. They advised me that they use the word "surfaces" to describe coins which have been stripped, naturally toned and touched up but that they could not see any evidence of tooling or smoothing. They acknowledged however that it is difficult to verify this from photos so that I should send it back to them to inspect in hand. This is what I will do and I'll report back here with the outcome.

What a rookie error - ignoring the word "surfaces" when bidding...

I don't mind those stripped and toned coins which have that golden-brown appearance of the Gordian sestertius above. I can also live with a coin which has been re-patinated if I knew it at the time and /or did not pay much for it. I don't have any issue with tooling. However I want to avoid adding coins to my collection which potentially have had patch work and / or substantial tooling.

Peter