Would you knowingly buy a tooled coin?

This is a sensitive topic, I realize, and will elicit a lot of strong opinions during its discussion. It's not my intention to create any ill will among the responders, and I trust the collectors who frequent this site and post their opinions will exercise their customary tact and diplomacy while rendering those opinions. But it's a topic that I believe most collectors of ancients will find interesting and possibly enlightening.

The impetus for starting this thread has come from pictures of the various bronzes that members have posted. While my expertise in detecting tooling is still improving, it's my observation that 80% - 95% of this site's posted bronzes are tooled -- many very heavily tooled. Occasionally I will ask my dealer's opinion on such a coin, and he'll be even harsher in evaluating the tooling than I am.

This made me wonder if the owner still would have purchased the coin, had he/she known the coin was tooled. Thus this thread.

For reference, I wanted to illustrate what happens in high-quality auctions when the auction site has the integrity to acknowledge that a coin is tooled. Here's an example of a Nerva sestertius from a 2012 auction:



The auction house described this coin, in part, as "Very rare. Olive green patina somewhat tooled on reverse, otherwise extremely fine." In fact, I believe the coin has also been tooled on the obverse, especially the neck and wreath of Nerva.

The estimated price was approximately $10,000 (not including the auction house buyer's fee of 18%) but not surprisingly, the coin went unsold -- it didn't even receive the opening bid of about $8,000.

Again, no ill will intended; I very much appreciate serious, thoughtful input on this topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The simple answer to your question from this poster is yes. The degree of tooling might change my mind. The coin you posted I would have no problem with the tooling if I could afford it.

 

I guess it depends. The degree of tooling, the accuracy of the tooling, the rarity of the item, the cost of the coin, all would play a part. Basically, the more common, inaccurate, or expensive the coin is the less I would be willing. Pretty scarce sestertius where they just touch up a few letters for $200? Yeah, if I really wanted the coin. Extensive tooling, or inaccurate tooling for $2000? Heck no.

I know its a slippery slope, and some purists would say no at any price. I am close, but am unwilling to say a coin that has just been touch up a LITTLE is unworthy of being collected anymore.

I do find the extensive tooling being done today on early coppers to be pretty reprehensible. Hopefully collectors start to strongly revolt, and the toolers will find all of their "work" is DECREASING the value of these coins, and not the other way around.

 

i agree with jw, as long as its real, i think everyone try's to enhance the coin somewhat, cleaning, darkening, but if you add color or added patina, no thank you...

 

But where is the "coin"? Are we but collectors of ancient flans? If we are, we can buy up worn slicks and have any "coin" carved into it, right?

I collect historical artifacts, not modern day artistic interpretations of ancient artistry. If a coin has significant parts recarved, maybe even "improved", is it still an ancient roman coin, or a modern tiny sculpture? Its an important difference, since we place heavy emphasis on tiny details at times. What if they carved in a new control mark on the reverse? What if that tree was supposed to be an oak but the engraver changed it to a palm tree because "palm trees are rarer?".

Very slippery slope. This is why I would only ever limit my "acceptability" to minor details that I can verify were perfect representations of the original, and even then not like it very much. Look how much a coin can change by the addition or subtraction of one letter. What if the tooler got it wrong either accidentally or on purpose?

 

I don't collect ancients. Please tell what is "tooling"?

 

I would not buy a coin if I knew it had been tooled at all. I am wary of "smoothing" too.
Martin

 

Your argument is valid medman. I think what I was referring to was the "minor details that I can verify were perfect representations of the original". I don't have a problem with a coin that has been cleaned up with a dremel tool, perhaps highlighting worn areas and letters. No, I do not want some modern day rendition nor do I want a coin that has "new" improvements added. A little touch-up as you say does not bother me.

 

Where someone carves details into the coin that have been worn off, (or were neve there), and then retones the coin to cover their tracks. It can be as little as strengthening something still there to as far as completely carving something from scratch on a smooth flan.

 

Tooling refers to the use of tools to engrave or smooth a coin in order to make it appear to be something better or more valuable than it really is.

 

Let me introduce "Mr.Tooly"



This was the nickname given to this example on another board. It looks as though a flat slug was taken and all the visible detail was engraved or scratched to create this "coin".

 

That's laughable Martin. Of course I would never buy such a joke. But look at the image posted originally. I cannot for the life of me see where this coin is changed from the original. Can someone point it out to me?

 

You need to find en EF untouched example from the original dies and then perform a detailed comparison. This is far beyond my research resources.

 

This is the coin I think of when I mentioned easily/badly tooled.

 

This is, indeed, the crux of the matter in this thread. If you're new to collecting ancient coins, your first thought might be "Gee, what's the big deal -- a little edge enhancement only makes the coin look better." But how does you know that edge was really there, or was that well engraved, in the first place? This line of reasoning quickly becomes insidious, and to some extent a rationalization. Accepting tooling renders coin grades essentially meaningless, since an "almost EF" coin can become "EF" with just a tiny bit of tooling -- but maybe that level of detail never existed on that coin due to a weak strike or a poor flan.

If there's an argument to be made in favor of accepting tooling, it might be that the buyer is looking only for a historically accurate reproduction on an ancient flan. But if that's the case, why not just go all the way and have the coin tooled to represent the highest quality and relief the flan will support? I tend to doubt that this thinking represents most collectors (at least on this site), most of whom would desire the most accurate, least manipulated coin they could afford.

By the way, I accept that some smoothing of bronzes' fields is acceptable, both to remove potentially harmful debris as well as render the flat areas -- which had no detail in the first place -- closer to their original state. But even here care must be taken, since smoothing can remove actual coin surfaces (not just debris), which would be regarded the same as tooling.

 

I would, but only if it is minor.

Medoraman's first post shows my opinions on this.

I would hope that you would PM me if I posted what you thought to be a tooled or a overly smoothed coin with your thoughts...

 

First, look at the legend on the reverse. The letters are far too sharply defined -- compare it to the legend on the obverse and you can begin to see the difference. Especially for letters such as "A" and "B" that have interior spaces, these interior spaces would have been practically smoothed over yet on the reverse they're very pronounced.

The left side of the palm tree is practically a straight edge -- it could not have been that sharp even when originally struck. Notice there seems to be a bit of a channel/furrow on this side of the palm tree, indicating tooling.

The top branches of the palm tree, leading into the fronds, are much too sharp when compared to other parts of the fronds, some of which show typical wear and reduced detail.

The two fruit branches hanging down from the top of the tree have been enhanced to show the round berries (?) more clearly.

On the obverse, I also believe that Nerva's entire neckline has been re-engraved to show it more clearly. In addition, the detail in the bow part of the wreath directly behind Nerva's neck seems too sharp for the level of wear that this open area would have received. Even the front of his nose appears to have been etched a bit deeply to make it stand out more.

 

I would have no problem buying a tooled coin, assuming it's fully disclosed and the discount is significant enough that I wouldn't be able to find something comparable (at maybe two or three grading tiers lower) for a better price.

 

IoM: I see the areas you point out, but if this coin was on my radar and in an affordable bracket for me, of all the things you point out, only the lettering stands out to me. All of the other things you point out I would never have noticed. I have no doubts that you are correct, but I would be loath to see them without someone pointing them out to me (maybe even the lettering).

 

Tooling or nice? What do you see?