Desert patina or doctoring? Sent coins to NGC (NGC's stance on repatination)

The Problem
Just sent two suspect (below) 'desert patina' Roman Empire bronzes to NGC in Sarasota. I know there are already quite a few CT threads about dealers adding desert patina, and from what I understand it can be difficult to tell real sand from fake. Is there a strategy for identifying repatination by texture etc with a loop?

Since we ofc clean ancients, there seems to be a continued battle on where exactly to draw the line on what is ok... Some people even consider repatination acceptable: http://www.fontanillecoins.com/tooling.htm

NGC's Seemingly Relaxed View on Repatination
Grading can be a little cost prohibitive and most ancients aren't slabbed, so among the threads about desert/sand patina I haven't seen a lot of talk about NGC's stance on the issue. I trust that David Vagi and his team at NGC Ancients know their stuff.

I sent the below two coins with standard service to get NGC's full view. This ensures I get that italicized comment in the bottom right corner of the slab label... It seems sandy coins either either get "Sand Patina" or "repatinated" as a comment. Either the patina is real or fake.

Sand Patina Example: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4094567-003/61/

Repatinated Example: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/2490527-002/61/

What is interesting is that NGC will still slab repatinated coins, thus taking the view that repatinating to accentuate devices is ok? If a coin was tooled or otherwise altered improperly, it would not be allowed in an NGC slab.

This also creates a loophole, assuming repatination is bad: a repatinated coin could be sent in via NGC Ancients Economy service and be slabbed without any notes on repatination as comments are not included in economy service. The coin could thus be sold as a coin with genuine patina, when in fact it has been added:

(Not sure whether this coin has real patina or repatination): https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/2070690-002/61/

Next Steps
If either of the two I sent come back as repatinated I may send them into NCS or exploring water/acetone etc.

Not going to disclose where I bought these to avoid the thread becoming a dealer roast. I didn't pay a premium for these coins -- just trying to learn more about what to look for. Thanks everyone!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Pretty easy to tell they are most likely from VC dealer, Zurqieh. Both coins I think are a waste to send to NGC, whether the patina is re-added or legit.

 

Neither of these coins looks repatinated. They both appear to have natural earthen adhesions.

 

Does the NGS use of 'Sand Patina' imply that their opinion is that sand was on the coin for centuries since recently sanded coins would have been termed 'Repatinated'? There are several ways to repatinate with sand including the famous Maybeline as exposed here by TIF. Some kinds wash off easier than others.

 

This a great question to consider. I wish they had descriptions on their website for different comments on the slabs... I guess I am assuming that if the coin's patina is centuries old it gets "sand patina" while patinas added by dealers get "repatinated"

 

..i think the coins are legit..but i'm kinda like you, i'd rather have the real stuff on them rather than 'added later' for sales purposes...and i agree with Mat on sending them to NGC... i trust them wholeheartedly on their opinions, but these are low cost coins to begin with...

 

Thanks for the look.

Thanks for taking a look. Yeah, adding stuff later for sales purposes almost seems unethical. Definitely common bronzes, I am just interested to see how they grade.

 

...ok..

 

We don’t use the term “sand patina”.

repatinated we do use if it’s obvious but not to egregious and doesn’t appear to be covering up repair or tooling.

coins that are covered with “fake” sand and appear to possibly be tooled or the sand is covering possible corrosion or other problems get sent back as Altered Surfaces. This is a real problem with Jewish bronzes and city coins. Less so with late Roman.

Barry Murphy.

 

..thanks Barry...but i see expos facto these coins have already been sent you ya....

 

Thanks for your time!

 

This thread seems very interesting and I am excited to see how they grade.

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4094567-003/61/
Now I am confused. While we are at it, why is the grade repeated?
NGC Grade
Ch F Strike: 3/5 Surface: 3/5 Strike: 3/5 Surface: 3/5

Is this a fake page and not showing a real NGC slab? Is it old and shows the possibility of separate grades for the two sides?

 

One of the linked coins' descriptions literally reads "sand patina".

 

That’s about 8-10 years old. We don’t use that term anymore and haven’t in about 6 years.

Barry Murphy.

 

Just a bug with NGC lookup and ancients. They all look that way.

 

...our @Barry Murphy is to ancients what E F Hutton was/is to stock investor here at CT...when he talks..we listen

 

I'm surprised that anyone would "add" a sandy patina. Seems like a way to ruin an authentic coin and at minimum is slightly unethical.