Big batch of AUREII withdrawn from CNG

I personally like some holes. Especially the square variety, which feel more old-timey to me. It doesn't hurt that they make some unobtainable types attainable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's my favorite holed coin. This would have been relatively low value, but someone thought it cool enough tho (crudely) hole and (presumably) wear as a pendant.

 

I think that is a little unfair. I believe all of us here consider ancient coins "historical artifacts". However, all of us also desire more attractive examples. Disagree? Would you prefer a VG or nice VF example of a particular coin? Would you pay the same for either?

Given we all want nicer coins if given the preference, (same price), we all care BOTH about it being an historical artifact and its beauty. I was simply saying some things like holes can SO COMPLETELY ruin the aesthetic for some that they can never appreciate it as a historical artifact. In that regard, I liked the quality of the restoration, though would prefer it was of a different colored metal to be able to tell.

 

In the general case, yes. If all other things are constant, I prefer a VG over a nice F. But, if there's some aspect of the coin that makes it more "historic", I'll pay more.

For example, I'll gladly take a F coin over a VF, if I know that the F was once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
I'll take a holey coin over a non-holey if I believe the hole was made in ancient times.

As I've said/written many times before, I don't collect coins. I collect stories, and the coin that happens to tell the better story is the one I'll want.

 

I tend to agree here but am less certain where I draw the line before which a hole or other damage becomes part of the history of the coin as opposed to evidence of modern vandals. I believe many gold coins exist today only because they were made into jewelry rather than melted down to recycle the gold.

What bothers me most is the realization that our coins seem to be the last holdout against what we still call inappropriate repair. Statues are assembled from parts with some being put together inappropriately with replaced arms and filled in damage. Oil paintings are cleaned with weak spots repainted. Canvases torn are stitched. Coin collectors pay a hundred times more for a perfect coin than for one just a bit less perfect. I fear that coins will follow paintings and the next generation will accept repairs as a good thing. Change is the only constant and our hobby will change in ways we have yet to imagine. I find 19th century jewelry made from coins interesting because they demonstrate interest in antiquity. I consider really old fakes collectable. Will Slavei be looked upon in 2121 as Becker is today? In 2521, will he be Cavino?

In the photo below, do we hope the coin is as fake as the singer? If genuine, should it be repaired?

 

I think @dougsmit has inadvertently coined a new and useful numismatic term: millivanillification.

 

Welp... @dougsmit posting a Milli Vanilli photo ... it must be the weekend!

 

@dougsmit , I wonder bout your statue example. Ancient statues went through EXTENSIVE restoration, often abusive, for centuries in the interest of aesthetics.

starting around the 1970s there was a rather universal push to do minimal conservation instead of restoration, and in many cases even DE-restoration of previously repaired statues.

would this indicate a possible future trend of RE-holing (ie removing hole plug repairs) from ancient coins?

a few comments above mentioned repairs in a different colored metal.

the archaeological practice of anastylosis enforces restoring structures using as much original material as possible. When a fill-in is critically needed for structural stability, it is to be made of a similar but distinct material to be immediately evident.

you can see this in many Greek and Roman temples that look shapely but are mottled in two colors - often a rather yellow or brown for the antique, and a brighter white (of a different strand of marble) for the repairs.
Anastylosis also calls for all repairs to be easily reversible.

I wonder if this thinking could be feasibly applied to ancient coins as well - for example, repairing a holed gold coin in copper, which is easily removed to revert the coin back to its original condition.

perhaps the fabric of coins is too small to provide for effective anastylosis. I guess we’ll see.

 

I think the difference is twofold:

1. An oil-on-canvas painting is one of a kind. There's no "better" version of the old master's painting to compete with the touched-up/restored painting, and

2. Art has at least the pretensions of being all about the aesthetics--which means the artist's original intention/vision is paramount, whereas you'd be hard-pressed to find a collector who doesn't think the history of a coin is a large part of its value. That history gets garbled and confused by a plug or smoothing or whatever other restorations are done, especially since they're done in the shadows.

 

At the end of the day - for better or worse - the market will decide.$$$

I love restoration when it is identified. However after a few decades that probably drops off like ill handled provenance.

No idea where that leaves the hobby.

As a bottom feeder I needn't worry too much.

 

From the Ukrainian auction site: "And of course, this luxury is available only to residents of Ukraine, the export of such artifacts outside Ukraine and into the occupied territories is punishable by law." (about an aureus).

So all the coins have been exported illegally ? I would be nervous if I was one of the many consigners...

 

I'm not familiar with Ukranian law but judging by how this is phrased, it appears to be in regards to the trade embargo in place against the occupied regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. Import of "luxury items" (such as numismatic items) to these areas is strictly prohibited.

 

from the description of a holed aureus sold on the same auction site , google translation :

Aureus of the Roman usurper Carausius, extremely rare coin. In a very decent condition, the hole can be carefully repaired if desired, and even on this class of coins, it does not greatly affect the price. A photo with a piece of Aureus is for a visual comparison of color rendition. The current price is only 15% of the auction price in Europe.

 

The plugs can not be removed from these coins restoring them to original condition. Recall Barry said NGC refused the coins for surface brushing. That can not be unbrushed.

Were not some of the Hoard coins one of a kind? Many ancients are unique. Others exist in some number but not in the grade that the market prefers. It is quite possible that these coins were the best known before they were repaired. Are they still?

 

The same is true of ancient Greek and Roman marble sculptures assembled from pieces. Anyone who's been to a classical art museum, I'm sure, has noticed that in modern practice, although as much original material as possible is used, gaps are filled in with plaster rather than marble, usually in a whiter color so the contrast with the original material is clearly evident. And missing appendages aren't always supplied. Even the Venus de Milo, rediscovered in 1820, is still missing her arms. (The Wikipedia article has a photo of an old proposed restoration of them, never carried out.)

Similarly, a lot of ancient vases and other pottery are reassembled from fragments, and missing pieces are, I believe, either supposed to be left as is, or filled in with undecorated pieces that are clearly modern. Trying to repaint the modern pieces to match the original, and selling a vase without disclosure of having done so, are obviously deceptive practices.

 

But in at least one case, the "Victory of Calvatone", appendages (wings) that may never have existed were supplied.

https://wsimag.com/art/61013-the-calvatone-victory

This statue was found without wings, and without a left arm and palm frond, but having been identified as Victory was then "restored" with these missing attributes to look like Victory. Apparently there's reasonable doubt that the figure is in fact Victory at all. At best, even if she is, such "restoration" is at best modern guesswork.

There's an interesting backstory to this piece - having originally been bought, restored, and displayed in Berlin, then targeted by the Soviets and taken as spoils of war during WWII. It was then stored in the basement of the Hermitage in Russia, in the wrong storage room due to having been misidentified as French, and only recently rediscovered, examined and put on display. They decided to leave the dubious wings, due to the statue having become famous in that form.

 

IMHO the most horrid restoration in history are the ruins of Knossos. Evans, bought the land from the local government of Crete after the liberation from the Turkish occupation, and created a fantasy park using reinforced concrete and lots of paint. At least he didn't try to do the same to his coins.

 

That is an interesting story. But of course in that case, the wings were added in 1844. I do not believe that would occur today, under the modern practice to which I referred. The wings have been left on for other reasons, as you point out.

At least coin restorations usually have an ancient model to follow. Leading both to increased accuracy, and to an increased possibility of deceptiveness. Not always the case for other art forms, leading to this sort of error.

 

I agree. I visited Knossos a few years ago for the first time and was willing to approach it with an open mind... but it was far worse than I could have imagined. What a disappointing destruction of history.

 

TO BE FAIR... the restoration of the frescoes was pretty groundbreaking at the time. Lots of artistic liberties, but it was probably the best they could have done at the time.
Modern archaeologists would be sick to the stomach, but I guess different times...