This is coming up for sale and I was hoping to get your opinions on the coin. The detail in the beard looks too nice to be original, I suspect it's been tooled although there is no mention in the description. What are your thoughts, and feel free to throw out a price you think is appropriate.
In addition to the overly sharp detail in the beard (notice how it's a different color from the neck), the giveaway that most indicates tooling (to my eye) is the detail in the laurel wreath and ear. These lines are much too sharp -- compare the wear on the reverse where the delineation edges between the devices and fields are much smoother due to wear. It's my rule never to buy (knowingly) coins that have been tooled. I would put this coin into that category.
I think it is a beautiful coin and I believe it has been tooled for the very reasons IoM mentions. However, just to argue with myself and IoM a bit, one would think if someone is going to go to all that trouble to tool the beard and laurel wreath, etc., why not smooth the field as well. I would suggest you looking at this link to get an idea of value: http://www.acsearch.info/search.htm...1&ot=1&images=1¤cy=usd&order=0&company=
I would agree with IoM. One "trick" I use is to look at other areas of the portrait. Look at his neck. One would expect all of the portrait to have similar surfaces. However, around the beard and hair there is none of this mottled surfaces. I am just not a fan.
Bing raises an interesting issue about tooled coins -- namely, whether or not to collect them. The most glaring example of this is a Vespasian Judaea Capta sestertius from NAC's 2007 auction that was considered to be tooled by most (but not all) dealers who viewed this coin: This coin sold for $95,000 (including buyer's fee) despite the high likelihood of being tooled. If this coin had been universally acclaimed to be natural (smoothing but no tooling) it would have been worth $250K+. If you had the money, would you have bought it for $95K?
Fascinating subject!! I can see the probable tooling in the OP coin, but can't for the life of me see where it is in the Judea Capta Sestertius--the darker smudge-like areas and the finer details?? Or is it just so improbable that a highly scarce coin like that can survive to the present in that condition?? Even if I had the money, I can't imagine purchasing any coin for near 100k---if I did, I'd probably immediately keel over and die of a heart attack! I'd still be interested in the OP coin if it was a 'bargain' at about $50.00 Since it does have some decent eye appeal and I'm not collecting for an investment.
Thanks for all the replies. It's a shame about the coin I posted, because I like the patina quite a bit and think it would have been a nice coin without tooling. As it is, I will pass on it. Interesting point Ides, and I think I'm in the same boat with the Judea Capta coin as with the one I posted. I don't think I'm going to pay 1/3 the cost of an original coin for a tooled example. I imagine the same ratio thought process goes on with the $95,000 coin as with the $200. I can afford the $200 just as I can afford the $600. Personally, If I could afford to spend $95,000 on a coin, then I could afford to spend $250,000 and the same analysis would go on, pass on the the tooled coin and wait, although I may have taken the bargain for the Judea Capta coin...
My fundamental issue with tooled coins is: Where do you draw the line? At what point does the tooling become excessive and you decide the coin isn't for you? Let's take a concrete example -- the OP coin: If the tooling on the obverse is acceptable, why not work on the reverse? Surely the COS can be engraved to make it a little sharper -- the "O" can be hollowed out, the "C" and the "S" can be better delineated. Is this acceptable? Surely the "III" can be enhanced, and the column's edges can be sharpened to make it stand out. Is this acceptable too? Why not work on the reverse legend a little bit since some of the letters aren't particularly readable. How much (more) tooling is acceptable? For my collection, the answer is "none." If I knowingly purchase a tooled coin, where did I draw the line on acceptable tooling? I don't want to start down this road. But I'd be interested in the logic of others here whose opinions differ from mine on this topic. In response to Mikey Zee's question "I can see the probable tooling in the OP coin, but can't for the life of me see where it is in the Judea Capta Sestertius--the darker smudge-like areas and the finer details?? Or is it just so improbable that a highly scarce coin like that can survive to the present in that condition??" I would note the following: While the reverse legend appears normal and even shows slight wear, the level of fine detail in the devices -- the faces, palm tree, and clothes of the figures -- is just beyond the amount likely to be preserved when cleaning and restoring this coin. I fully understand why most dealers who viewed this coin thought it to be tooled.
Thanks for the clarification I-O-M I can see your point and I would have to agree with your observations and your over-all preferences, especially if I were purchasing high-end coins such as this one. I appreciate all your comments---something else I now realize I should look for and where. Drawing the line sure is a bit tricky---how much is too much...
i dont have it, it is for sale by VCoins i was looking for the same coin t that not was tooling. I you think there are fake, then i prefer the tooling coin xD i though i found a good example for not a tooling coin
I had a fake in a collection I was selling for a client. An acknowledged expert dealer looked at the edge and showed me a casting line around the edge. Always look at the edge when evaluating a coin.
Yes, a casting line along the edge is a dead giveaway, but many of the better fakes have no discernible casting line. Looking for this line is just one step in spotting a fake.
