I recently got this Hadrian sestertius for around $30. It has this really odd surface which I suspect is an applied/false patina. As we can see, much of the surface is covered in a very smooth, dark green "substance" that I'm not sure is a natural patina. You can see a great deal of the underlying brass, which I suspect is the original, pitted surface. This coin appears to be from the same collector, or at least the same "treatment center" as this Faustina sestertius which has a similar smooth, glossy, dark green patina. At first I thought that Faustina was a natural patina, but upon closer inspection there are a few areas of underlying brass poking out. So my question is, do you think that the patinas on one, or both of the coins are applied/false? If so, what's my best option at stripping the Hadrian?
I have a nagging suspicion that stripping the Hadrian will yield a very pitted surface, such as this similar Trajan that is more pockmarked than my face in high school. If Hadrian ends up like this, is it even worth the strip, or should I just leave it looking all weird with the mottled patina?
I'm no expert, but I'm not even sure that's applied patina so much as a coin that's already stripped and that's why the patination looks so uneven and funky. You'd assume a person nefarious enough to apply fake patina to cover up pitted surfaces would have covered up all the pitted surfaces. It looks to me like somebody tried, poorly, to use electrolysis. And either, quit halfway through, or else saw how pitted it was and stopped. When I first started I used electrolysis (I'd, read many museums used this method. Sadly, they still do. So I bought some cheap kit on ebay) on "Unidentified" LRBs. That's what it would look like if you didn't complete the process. The stuff that is hard to get off clings on like gunk does. That all said, I'd recommend leaving it alone. It's a fun coin. And in a few years won't look so uneven. I have some very stripped coins that surprisingly are bouncing back in color. *I don't recommend electrolysis nor stripping coins
Ah. As I was typing, Ryro beat me to the punch. I think we're on the same page here - but with electrolysis experience... My thoughts: I am certainly no expert on patina, but that Hadrian could just be a poorly-cleaned example - where some of the (genuine) patina was stripped away, but not all of it. As a bottom-feeder, I have several AEs that look like this. As for the Faustina, I also have some AEs where only a few high areas are note patinated. I just figured the coin got banged around some over the centuries. If somebody is going to the trouble to fake patina a coin, why not just cover the whole surface? Every coin is shiny under the patina, whether the patina is genuine or fake, so I am not sure how the shiny bits can determine the genuineness of the patina. If it were mine, I wouldn't strip it - half a patina being better than none at all.
Thanks, everyone! I'm still new to determing a real vs fake patina. It is true that it is odd for someone to give up halfway on applying some varnish or whatever; Ryro's comment that someone gaveup halfway on stripping it now seems rather more likely. Mike, thanks for alleviating my suspicions on the Faustina. I love the patina and would hate for it to be all fake...
Agreed with Ryro and Marsyas Mike. I am only basing this off my personal experience cleaning coins. It def appears like the initial cleaning was done haphazardly. They both also bring up a good point of no sense in adding fake patina to only a portion of the coin and leaving the rest exposed. It would be more evident it were tampered with if that were the case.
