Smoothing: Yay or Nay?

While doing my normal round of internet browsing today I came across a bronze 'white whale' with an impeccable provenance that I would really like to add to my collection, however, the coin has been 'gently smoothed'.

Of course tooling is a huge no-no, but is smoothing OK with you? I'm just curious how my fellow CTers feel about this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It depends on how bad the smoothing looks, but I am a bit more accepting of it then tooled coins.

 

@David Atherton ...Good timing..Thanks..
I've recently started collecting big Roman bronzes...So excuse my ignorance....but I don't really know what I'm looking for in relation to smoothing...I would really like to see a gently smoothed example or even a coin that has been harshly smoothed just to visualize what impact this has on the original coin....
I assume this indicates the flattening of the field areas but does it have a detrimental effect on the details of the coin or the patina?..and how can you tell?
Could someone post a before and after so I can see the difference as it's confusing the hell out of me..Thanks Paul

 

Im in the same boat as you @Spaniard.

 

I would say no/ since its a flaw on TPG slabs. I did get a MS Papal States AV Ducato Pope Nicholas V/ where the NGC slab listed the coin under, "UNC. details/tooled ie clipped back in the day 1470s. This was done 700 years ago, by a crooked moneyer/ to shave off a gram or less, so it would not be evident. On high magnification I think the flan was a bit off/ I could not see any clipping.

 

Frankly, I'm shocked that at the time I voted 2/3 of the voters are fine with this. I take it these are the same folks that like "improved" versions of classic art.
Since I'm in the minority here I'll just sit in the corner and grumble. But this doesn't bode well for the hobby, IMHO

 

Like everyone else, I'd prefer to avoid tooled and smoothed coins. Significant tooling is very bad, but for some types, like sestertii, smoothing of fine coins was commonly accepted two centuries ago and many sestertii offered today have some (or a lot) which is often not mentioned by sellers. I can't say I like it, but if an otherwise-nice sestertius of a type I want has some smoothing, I'd accept it if the price were somewhat less because of it. Smoothing does not add details like tooling does, rather it smooths rough (corroded) surfaces where there was no design detail. I can live with that.

For the definition of tooling and smoothing, see http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/condition.html#IV

 

For a bit of disclosure concerning the 'impeccable' provenance - it is Ex E.E. Clain-Stefanelli collection. Apparently she was fine with smoothing.

 

This is something everyone should be aware of. Many large bronzes in trade today have been smoothed and normally this is not commented upon.

 

In many cases smoothing is a by product of cleaning the coin. Of course it can be taken too far. I look at it on a case by case basis.

 

@Ryro .....I'll sit in the corner grumbling with you if I new what the hell smoothing is!....
I started a thread on a Dupondius of Antoninus Pius....
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/antoninus-pius-dupondius-tooled.353742/
Someone posted that there was a possility that the coin had been smoothed?...
So what are the indicators of smoothing?
Paul

 

I think smoothing is more common than many know. So yes, some smoothing is acceptable.

 

I said "no" and voted no but it appears like I am in the minority here. I suppose if it didn't hurt the resale value too much (not exactly the reason I collect coins) than in some circumstances it might be acceptable.

 

My novice understanding is that smoothing is when someone alters an ancient coin with modern techniques by "smoothing" over holes, dents and dings so they can sell it for more. Others might say it "tidies" up the coin. But it's a slippery slope between smoothing and tooling. When looking for smoothing I look for inconsistent surfaces. It might be Smooth around the portrait and then the portrait has erosion.

 

I'll take a shot and see if correct...

With your coin as an example, there are raised mildly bumpy areas up in the transitions from field to portrait or devices, which leads one to question whether the bumps would've naturally also appeared in the fields also and was instead smoothed to remove them but not in those creases. There also appears to be what some might call "cleaning marks" (or in this case "smoothing marks"?) like above Libertas' arm, in the field near AP's nose, and at the bottom near his neck in the field.

 

Agree, some minor smoothing is ok as long as the coin doesn’t look fakey. The key is that no ‘details’ are added and it is not done to deceive.

 

Here is an example of a coin (a Caligula as with Vesta on the reverse, RIC I 38) for which the seller's description specifically states "Obverse fields somewhat smoothed." One can easily see the difference from the reverse field -- or from Caligula's face on the obverse -- which obviously have not been smoothed:


Would people here consider this amount of smoothing as something disqualifying this coin from your wanting to buy it?

 

Another related situation is when the whole coin is polished in cleaning rather than selectively smoothed. Exactly where to draw the line on each term is a case by case basis. The Caligula as almost looks overall polished judging from the photo as I see it. Is that better or worse than being smoothed in the fields only?

 

@Justin Lee ...Ahhh...Thank you so much! That's really appreciated! And really helps!...I can now see what people think might be smoothing. I can see the smoothing or cleaning marks above the arm of Libertas' arm and yes away from the bridge of AP's nose could well have been smoothed or cleaned?...
So I'm interested in other experts opinions..Does this possible smoothing effect the aesthetics of the
coin?...Paul

 

The lettering on both sides does seem unusually clear and to stand out to an unusual degree. Does that result from polishing? Or perhaps from tooling around the letters?