Would you knowingly buy a tooled coin?

I have strong doubts about the 80-95% figures too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm in complete agreement with your statement here. I don't see how it's possible to avoid owning tooled bronzes, unless (a) you're willing to accept the naturally soft contours of an untooled bronze in good-to-fine condition (which, candidly, I don't think most dealers will try to sell since they can't make much of a profit on such coins), or (b) purchase high-quality auction coins through the services of a reputable dealer who will examine each coin and honestly tell you whether the coin has been tooled.

When I first started adding bronzes to my collection, I found a lot of attractive coins on high-profile, medium-to-high quality auction sites. When I asked my dealer about these coins, essentially 100% of them had been tooled to some extent, even though such tooling was not noted in the auction site's description of the coin. Without his guidance, I would have unknowingly ended up with many such coins in my collection.

Even more surprisingly, some buyers appear not to care. For example, at an auction last year (according to my dealer), a particularly nice (but obviously tooled) Judaea Capta Vespasian sestertius sold for over $200K. Apparently, the demand for such coins is so high that wealthy buyers (probably not collectors) who have a particular interest in Judaea-related coins were willing to bid the coin up to this price. But this is an anomaly, since in the vast majority of cases, tooled coins either end up unsold, or being sold for a price that reflects the known tooling.

As for the sestertius that you reference above, it is certainly tooled, although not egregiously so:



On the obverse, it seems clear that almost the entire outline of the emperor has been sharpened a bit to increase its relief, especially behind the neck and around the ribbons. Also, the detail in the ear is sharp, rather than smooth, and this indicates some tooling. Look at the detail of the ribbons just behind the neck: the edges are much sharper than any of the other details on the obverse. The legend at 3 o'clock and 11 o'clock appears sharpened as well.

On the reverse, the outline of the angel (?) and his wings are much more delineated than the legend, although each device would have been subject to equal wear during the coin's circulation. I can't reach any conclusion other than some tooling in this device. Even the "O" in "VICTOR" appears to have been engraved a bit to make it stand out more, whereas the equally worn "C" has not had this level of re-engraving.

I'm not saying this is a bad coin at all, just that given its state of circulation and wear, many of the devices are too sharp to conclude that they haven't been tooled.

 

The fact that the "C" does not appear to have any re-engraving leads me to believe that the wear on this coin is more natural and uneven. If this is the case, then certain details would naturally be sharp while others would ne worn. Why not re-engrave the "C" or even the entire legend?

 

Wear happens from the highest points and is not equal across the whole coin. I do not understand your argument here.

 

From a poor photo it is impossible for me to tell if this coin suffered more than smoothing and uneven striking. Some of you have a lot more experience in this area than I do.

 

the coin above doesn't look any different than many coins i've seen with uneven wear, shouldn't uneven clarity of letters or legends imply that it hadn't been tooled? the wear on that doesn't strike me as being any different really than this modern coin...



....but i don't really know what i'm talking about to be honest (as most of you know). interesting discussion...back to lurking. :lurker: