EXTREME MAKEOVER

I think this is a very difficult subject. Paintings and murals are regularly cleaned and restored. I was in Padua (Italy) a few weeks ago, where I saw the famous Giotto frescos (if you ever get a chance, go and see them, they are breathtaking), which had been damaged by earth quakes and 700 years of environental impact. I think I much prefered to see the restored work than the damaged one.

Could it be the same with coins? Does it maybe depend on the quality of the restoration work? I guess the difference is that the condition of the coins is typically stable, thus not requiring any work. Only if it wasn't stable would "restoration" to stabilize the coin be justified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You'll find the answer in this video. Notice that the "before" part is when he is tattooed all over his body. RIP zombie boy.

 

..and this is why i like my coins to be worn with mileage and lQQk like they're 2000 years old...

 

From a curiosity standpoint, it would be interesting how much is paid to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. Obviously every job would be different but I wonder if the 'medical bills' account for a good portion of the added cost so it would cost as much total even if the seller described it as 'improved'. I assume most of the people buying such coins have no idea that anything was done but there may be a class of wealthy collectors who simply do not care. A local museum here was very proud a couple years ago when they did a massive re-restoration of their best statue consisting of taking it apart and reversing the errors made when it was restored the first time years ago. Coins, supposedly, differ in that they exist in conditions that do not need such restoration. I have to wonder if that is a fact or just evidence that even the best of us are too stupid to know what is going on.

 

Good points, Doug. Sometimes coins, especially high value coins, are given to restoration experts to "improve" what would otherwise be a less comely coin due to the flaws apparent in the first photograph of the Claudius sestertius. Depending on the degrees of these flaws, the work can range from fairly minimal (think light smoothing and cleaning) to extensive (filling in pits, extensively tooling element detail and letters and removing all deposits, re-patinating and removing blemishes).

I think the coin's owner is willing to accept the results and costs, which can be quite high, but relative to the value of the "improved" coin, versus its original condition, a certain calculation must have been made by the owner of the Claudius sestertius, as it was subsequently put up for auction. As for the new owner, maybe he or she is totally cognizant of the amount of work done to the coin, and accepts it as such. Or, the new owner doesn't really know, or even if informed, really does not care, since the coin does have appeal to those who are not ancient coin collectors, lacking the knowledge that comes with years, even decades of experience with ancients.

As with art, ancient coins are often treated, often with a light cleaning, but sometimes with far more work. Some interventions are necessary, such as with bronze disease. But there is a line between what needs to be done and what is physical alternation of a coin, making it fundamentally deceptive. The OP coin clearly crossed that line.

As for the level of knowledge, or lack thereof, we can only rely on experience or even our "sixth" sense when something appears amiss with a coin, and, with the aid of fellow collectors and dealers, try to set things right.

 

Another one for @dougsmit and @maridvnvm : here the mama's portrait has been slightly improved. Does it worth an increase of price from 13,000 € in 2012 to 32,000€ in 2014 ?

 

So, the buyer pays for mama’s nose job, and probably will give her extra cash to get the kiddies some sweets. How generous!

- Broucheion

 

The hair of Caracalla and Geta have also been recut.

 

Dad’s hair looks a little more detailed as well.

 

..with no mention of the 'work' done...i'd call it fraud...

 

Moms face looks so disapproving of the treatment

 

That nose job, based on my 10 days in law school, before dropping out in 1975, buying a 66 Mustang and driving from LA to San Jose by Highway 1, looks like a good basis for a malpractice suit. The reconstructed, or rather constructed nose, isn't anything like what the original suggests it should be. Looking at he original, the nose should be shorter and somewhat wide. The new nose is too long and the mouth has been changed to look a lot narrower, creating almost a cartoon character appearance to Julia Domna, or is that Paccia Marciana? Her hair has been reengraved as well.

 

I do think the word 'improved' is poorly selected here. That is a face not even a mother could love. I believe most of us agree that any such work is inappropriate but hack jobs like that nose can not be appreciated even by those who can tolerate such things. We know two things about this coin. 1. Work was done because the coin changed between the two sales. 2. The work was poorly done to the point that we do not need to find a pair of before/after photos to see there is a problem here. The criminal who commissioned this work should have opted for someone capable of the work. That is my point. This is poor work. Is there a higher level 'artist' that has done similar repairs to other coins that can only be discovered if we find a matching pair of sale photos. Of the ten thousand perfect coins we see in the market, how many are made 'perfect' recently? We know this happened as recently as 2012 so it is not unreasonable to think the same worker may be working on another coin as we are discussing this. Have they improved their skills? I know the graders at NGC and other numismatists have exposed things of this kind but we do not know if there are coins they missed or that were never sent to them because the owner had no clue that the coin was not as made 'back then'.

I wish I could agree with this but I have seen coins 'improved' from good to fine and see no reason that people of my level of 'expertise' might expect to discover any meaningful percentage of these. I have some really nice looking coins 'for their grade'. Does anyone have an NGC slab that reads F 5/5 5/5? That would strike me as a nice coin. I hope that it is 'nice and original' as opposed to 'recently nicened'.

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." Shakespeare

Shakespeare did not know he was talking about coins. We all like coins 'as struck' and coins that have become even better in time with great, natural patina. We have not warmed up to the coins recipient of 'greatness thrust upon them.' Or have we?

 

OK OK. You all have good arguments here, but I think you are really missing respect for these "modern engravers". They really do improve the look of their masterpieces, don't they? One last example; at least the legend is clearer...

 

The only type of makeover I would accept is this sort:

 

While it is true that the legends and some of the design elements are much clearer, although I do question the accuracy some of the work, notably on the reverse, this is a case of something gained and something lost. What has been lost, really, is the ancient aspect of this ancient coin. After the work, it looks like a coin that might have come out of someone's shop yesterday.

Does it matter? I guess that comes down to one's preferences or values, but I think it compromises the coin's integrity as one produced nearly thousand years ago. Sometimes, a little crusty is a good thing.

 

I saw the Septimius in hand last year or the year before. It was returned as repaired. In hand the surfaces rang alarm bells even without seeing the before photo.

this is one I saw a few years ago. This pleasant Kyzyikos stater was in CNG 105.




it now looks like this:






I see this sort of work almost daily.

Barry Murphy

 

Artwork restoration vs. coin re-engraving are very, very different issues.

Almost all artwork is intended by the artist to be permanent and unchanging, as an expression of the artist's vision when he/she originally created the work. Restoration of artwork preserves the artist's original vision for those who would view the work.

Coins are specifically and purposely created for circulation as money, and wear & tear are a natural part of this process.

Coins -- certainly ancient coins -- were not designed nor intended for permanence over more than a limited time period and probably not envisioned as collectible items. The nature of coins is to be worn, so it's natural that less worn and less degraded coins will be prized more highly by collectors. Re-engraving worn coins is the antithesis of coins' nature, causing the coin to become something different from its original purpose -- thus, no longer a coin.

Those who purchase re-engraved coins are purchasing a representation of a piece of antiquity, but not a real piece of antiquity.

 

I agree, recutting is not justifiable as restoration or maintenance.

I have shown these coins below before. They are only three examples of many! All three coins were bought cheaply and in original condition on an Ukrainian auction site. They were then "restored" and sold by western auction houses of the highest reputation, without telling the potential buyers about the repairs. I notified one of the auction houses. They reexamined the coin (Gallienus) and said that the repair was invisible even under high magnification.

 

This Carausius aureus is currently on sale on an Ukrainian auction website.
Enjoy it in its original state. It will probably not be long before it appears in a major western auction - without the hole and "improved".

The coin costs about 42000 USD in the current state. Without the hole and improved it could be worth 100k to 150k. I can definitely see the motivation.