Warning: extensively tooled Faustina I sestertius in Bertolami

If you're familiar with the way Roman matronly apparel is depicted on coins, you'll laugh at the way the folds of the goddess's stola are portrayed on this heavily tooled sestertius. Similarly, the "detail" on the empress's hairstyle was added by tooling.

I've notified the auctioneer of my concerns. It's Bertolami auction E 109 Lot 717.



For comparison, here's my well-circulated but unaltered example. I'd tell you it looks better in hand, but I'd be lying. In fact, here are a hundred examples that demonstrate what Faustina's hair and Juno's clothes are supposed to look like.


Faustina I, AD 138-140.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 25.48 g, 32.1 mm, 1 h.
Rome, AD 150 - 161.
Obv: DIVA FAVSTINA, bare-headed and draped bust, right.
Rev: IVNO S C, Juno standing left, holding patera and scepter.
Refs: RIC 1143; BMCRE 1531-35; Cohen 210; Strack 1276; RCV 4629.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Definitely pretty obvious tooling...unfortunately.

 

It's fortunate the tooling was obvious. It's the skillful and deceptive tooling that worries me.

 

Update: Bertolami added the word "tooled" to the description this morning.

 

The "tooler" wrapped Juno up like a mummy! IMO, it's a shame they didn't just remove the, now, modern production. But, some folks don't mind their wacky toolies.

 

I wonder if they notified the bidder who bid €95 before they corrected the listing.

 

Can you imagine finding out after the fact that you just paid 100 bucks for a toolie?!


That's one of those emails to the auction house that starts out with, "So sorry. I have no idea how my kid got my phone..."

 

There is a lesson here for new collectors: spend LOTS of time just looking at coins, especially the ones you are interested in collecting. Use all the available online resources: wildwinds, acsearch, ma-shops, vcoins, CNG, etc. Look closely, examine details - don't just glance. Eventually you will develop instincts for what doesn't look right, whether it be slight, or as in this case, egregious.

 

That's just crazy - thanks for highlighting. It will be interesting to see if it gets a premium as an unique work of art "etched on an ancient coin of Faustina I". @Ryro called it correctly in my view:

 

The reverse looks like it was tooled by someone who had never seen a reverse from this, or indeed any, era of Roman coinage. Baffling.

 

Is it "transformative"? Is it "fair use"? Is it "appropriation art"? Could the tooler claim copyright in the new design as an independent work of art, even if the original were under copyright protection? All these copyright issues, without even reaching the issue of the rights to the digital image of the coin! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art) to get an idea of how complicated all of it is. (I should emphasize that I never practiced Intellectual Property law -- you have to be a specialist to do that! -- and know nothing more about it than the average layperson.)

 

@Roman Collector....Thanks for posting this....I don't know about others but tooling on big Bronzes scares the hell out of me!....I would really like to purchase more Sestertii and Dupondii but I'm very concerned about not having much experience of handling them....I'll take John's advice and begin to observe these denominations in more detail.
Here's one I hope ISN'T tooled?

 

It doesn't look tooled to me. Here's mine.

 

It doesn't look tooled to me either. Like you, though, I always worry when I consider buying a Roman bronze in great condition that the details are the product of tooling. Never mind smoothing. I haven't yet learned to look at a dupondius or sestertius and immediately recognize tooling, unless it's obvious and crude like in the example shown here. As far as I know, tooling is not so easy and not so much a concern with silver denarii and antonianii, which is one of the reasons I focus more on such coins in buying Roman Imperials. (I haven't read that tooling is as big a concern for bronze Roman Provincials.)

 

The hair style on the auction sestertius is odd, especially with the placement of the bun at the top, which appears below the top of her head and kind of carved into her hair.

Now, whether this is due to tooling or die engraving, I cannot say.

I copied the image of the auction coin into Photoshop. The image is somewhat grainy, so I cannot see the characteristic tooling marks that one would expect. Is it possible that the coin was tooled and then re-patinated?

 

Same here, that's why I only buy bronze in NGC slabs.

 

LOL : nothing fair about that use in my view, but remind me to get a legal consult before I bid on such a coin

 

Interesting post - tooled coins are generally high grade (in a way; that's why they get tooled I suppose), so they are out of my price range.

Here is a very worn example of the OP (and that one in the @Roman Collector collection). Normally I would doubt anybody tooled it - but the lettering is very weird. It is either worn smooth or super high relief - check out that stray surviving "N" on the reverse. Some of the detail in Faustina's hair is surprisingly clear given the wear. Also her drapery around the bust is very abbreviated. Peculiar wear or modern diddling?


Faustina I Æ Sestertius
5th Phase: Anniversary of Faustina’s Deification
(c. 150-160 A.D.)
Rome Mint
DIVA FAVST[INA], diademed and draped bust right / [IV]N[O] S-C, Juno standing left, holding patera and long sceptre.
RIC 1143; Cohen 210.
(25.07 grams / 31 x 29 mm)
eBay Nov. 2020

 

No fiddling, I think. The die axis of your coin is apparently 12h, so the weakness of the legend before the portrait corresponds to the missing I V on the reverse.

 

I was going to be aghast that an auctioneer of some repute would not note what appears to be a blatant defect. But then I observed that this auction has over 1700 lots with many starting at 5 Euros. I guess realistically one cannot expect perfection when cataloging a sale like that. Buyer Beware then.