NAC auction: tooled thurium distater

I was quite surprised to see today a distater from Thurium to sell in NAC for 7500 CHF with an earlier record of 2300 GBP, while it should never have been offered in the first place. It is even more surprising that the provenance was noted and so it was extremely easy to find photos of the older state of the coin.

Looking forward to hearing from the usual dealers and dealer apologists frequenting CT.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I haven't been here all that long, but I haven't noticed anyone -- whether dealers or their "apologists" -- making excuses for tooling, etc. Can you provide some examples?

 

I'm a rookie collector. I don't understand your post. Are you claiming that these are three images of the same coin and in one or two of the images the surfaces of the coin have been tooled?

 

Perhaps my early morning auction eyes are failing me but I'm not seeing the tooling: it seems like just a difference in photography. Could you circle or direct me to what you're noticing?

 

I was going to ask the same question -- because I couldn't tell either whether any differences result from tooling or just differing photography -- but don't have the same level of knowledge that you do. So, better it comes from you!

 

From the description of the previous sale "minor scuff on reverse". Have a look at the bull's belly.

 

When I look at the obverse, the serpent lady details versus porosity of the helmet sure looks "better" on photo 3 versus photo 1. I agree maybe its the lighting, but to my eyes sure looks like "strengthening" of the lady and smoothing of the helmet. Other incidences of the same thing on other spots.

Maybe its the lighting, but that would make me wonder unless I saw the coin in hand before the first auction and after the latest one.

 

Great point; I hadn't looked closely there. That is noticeably less visible to where I wonder if it was naturally worn down or artificially smoothed. It's clear that there's still something going on but that might have been messed with - it's hard to say just from these pictures.

 

Yes, now that you point it out, it is more obvious to me that there has been some smoothing done. Hard to determine, though, if NAC was aware of this. If you noticed it, I would think the auction house grader should also. I do believe that all auction houses should inform potential bidders of any smoothing or tooling and let the bidder decide if that would detract from his or her interest in the coin. I personally do not bid on coins if I am sure they have been smoothed or tooled.

 

The previous auctioneer naville numismatics is a collaborator of NAC and they relied on the experts of NAC

 

The high points on the reverse are protected by the concavity of the rim. Even if not, the bull's belly is not the highest point. Unless a coin elf was secretly rubbing the bull's belly every night waiting for the geenie to come out.

 

Not necessarily: the bull's belly was the highest point on the examples I've owned (they're a rather high-relief type). I unfortunately don't have one at the moment to take a side picture of but it isn't necessarily a protected area.

 

I wonder if the third image was "processed" using Photoshop. It is very easy to use the spot healing tool to blend a surface in a given area, and if it is done by an expert, very difficult to discern.

I remember a year or so ago that I bid on and won an Athenian tetradrachm that was different in hand compared to the auction photo. The coin, when received, had a distinct deposit on the obverse that was clearly not present in the auction photo. The deposit was easy to remove, so it was no big deal for me.

Still, I think some photo manipulation or enhancement is done quite often, and when it involves a big bucks coin such as this distater of Thurium, it is an important issue, along with tooling.

But looking at the images a little more, the differences could be due to lighting and possibly haze elimination, which, again, can be changed through Photoshop.

 

I see, said the blind man. Thanks: The scrape on the Bull's belly has been "fixed."

One way to ID this type of repair (NOT actually TOOLED although a "tool" was used to make the repair - you guys call it "smoothed" ) is to look for the "stippling" done to hide it.

 

I think the repairman did a very good job. But the bull's belly has clearly been repaired. I wonder if it just smoothing or if any metal was added before smoothing to cover the scrape. Anyhow, the "repair" should have been disclosed in the lot description.

 

The intervention was not simple smoothing, the larger area was made to look like there's some porosity or traces of removal of deposits. I don't think it would be easily spotted without the older auction records.

For example I provide a comparison to my own example and to answer to what has been said earlier by @AncientJoe, the high points are the bull's tail which is very frequently worn and the bull's shoulders.

 

Very valid points, and I agree with your assessment: it's unlikely that this is natural wear. I hadn't looked at when the prior auction occurred but 2014 would be an aggressive timeline for that sort of natural polishing to occur (the worn tail in this example made me think it might be on the same linear plane but that's probably not what happened here).

In any event, it's worth reaching out to NAC to see if they can check in-hand and inform the buyer/pull the lot.

I've previously had them inform me after the sale that a coin had an issue that went unnoticed the first time around and that they would happily cancel the purchase so I'm sure they'll make everyone whole here.

 

And by the way, for everyone: notice how nicely executed are Athena's lips in the original NAC coin compared to the festa fake I mentioned in another thread, see below.

 

Well, I am not planning to go on a witch hunt. The whole issue came out of my curiosity on why I didn't bid on the coin in the earlier sale and so I checked the records; the scuff explained why I passed. It used to be an honest coin struck from dies of wonderful style until somebody decided to put their hands on it.

The lesson learnt is "know the coin" and "trust no one".

 

pprp
"And by the way, for everyone: notice how nicely executed are Athena's lips in the original NAC coin compared to the festa fake I mentioned in another thread, see below."

Do you have any evidence that it is actually a festa fake?
There is not such coin in bulletin on counterfeits, I have bulletin on counterfeits!

Here the links to CNG"Festa" fake

CNG pretends "IBSCC Bulletin 20.2 (1995/6), p. 30, RO.1 (same dies)."

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=359374

Here is the link to the specimen 1 Festa fake in IBSCC Bulletin 20.2 (1995/6)

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/fakes/displayimage.php?pos=-8488

Page 30 in IBSCC Bulletin 20.2 shows Bulgarian fakes, lol !!!!


CNG is has wrongly attributed many fakes and always they attributed them that they were more interesting and expensive I assume it is only a coincidence but I expect from an auction house that they verify attribution if they get them already attibuted form collectors of that they do a deligenter attibution if they do it themself.

In Bulletin Vol 22, No. 1 in 1997 are Festa fakes too but of course no die match

The supposed Festa fake seems to be fake but it is either an unpublished Festa fake or more likely a cast or transfer die fake.