Agree with much of what's being said, but not all of it. In pointing out the smoothing, I'd asked if the seller noted it was smoothed. If not it is suspect. It had been alluded to that the smoothing wasn't much. To me, it is. The only kind of toothpick I could see making these gouges, all the way to what looks to me to be in the metal, is a metal dentist toothpick. CT ancients is a funny place. Sometimes it seems almost unanimous that tooling and smoothing are lame and a subtle way to destroy history for financial gain. And the other times, the statement comes out, it comes down to how bad is it to you? For me anything beyond @svessien 's recommendation is too much. Again, I'm looking with amateur eyes and saying what I see. I'd love to hear what @Barry Murphy thinks. Is it severe enough to be noted?
Hello! This is the ancient-coin forum. If you have collected ancients for a long time you know that smoothing is not the end of the world, and even a bit of cutting into metal by accident (as between the left two columns) is not unusual. Many interesting and desirable ancient coins have been abused at some stage in their long history. The next generation of collectors will decide what they value, but if they reject the OP coin on the grounds of a few scratches they will be missing out on some very nice coins (like that one). What do you like about ancient coins? History? Art? Architecture? There is a long list of things to like, but too many new collectors think it all comes down to "grade" and "smoothing" and "tooling." Why collect ancients at all if that is where your values reside?
Posting the obverse of this coin has been very helpful and enlightening: When I examine this image closely, the two questions that pop into my mind are: "Why do the reverse columns and exergue legend seem so well defined and in such high relief, yet similar features on the obverse (such as the crown and the legends) are not nearly as well defined? How is it possible that the reverse of this coin has experienced so much less wear on its high points than the obverse seems to have received?" I'm not referring to the smoothing in the reverse fields, which is so obvious as to not need any specific comment, but rather I'm noting the stark visual difference between the obverse and reverse sharpness and details. It's highly unlikely that this coin's reverse experienced less circulation wear than the obverse -- so unlikely that I personally would not consider it as an explanation for the difference between the obverse and reverse. It might be possible to argue that the reverse has been subject to over-zealous smoothing between the columns and in the exergue legend, which would result in a deepening of the surface and a much higher relief of the surrounding details. If I accept this argument, then I personally would regard this as tooling, since it entails the removal of parts of the coin that were present on the coin when it ceased circulating, which is (essentially) my personal definition of tooling. It's not my intention to dissuade anyone from embracing this coin as acceptable for his/her collection, nor am I definitively stating that this coin is tooled. Rather, the appearance of this coin's reverse strikes me as unusual -- even more so when compared to its obverse -- and for those collectors (like me) who prefer not to collect tooled examples, I would at the very least get an expert in-hand opinion before acquiring this coin.
I think there are two plausible mechanisms by which reverses often look sharper than the obverse, only one having to do with wear. First, the reverse being the hammer side, is often the one to get the sharper strike if one side ends up being weakly struck. Second, because the reverse is slightly concave (not obviously so on the OP coin, though I think I a raised edge on the reverse which would protect it from some amount of wear, especially if it's "taller" than the temple), and the obverse convex, the reverse may receive less wear. I'm not saying I'm sure that's what's happening here, but it wouldn't be unheard of. Personally, I'm not convinced that this is "tooled" in the typical sense (the feature around the NON, for example, seem to occur normally, I'm not sure if it has to with how some dies were engraved or what). Here's a coin of mine with a much softer obverse. I wouldn't say there's evidence the reverse has been tooled in the following case, it's just a feature of the mechanics of coin design:
So you are saying that I shouldn't collect ancients due to not liking tooled coins (Why collect ancient at all...), new collectors shouldn't worry about "smoothing and "tooling" and lastly you lump these 2 crappy things in with "grade"??? Who does that? That has nothing to do with this conversation. Just a good way to make your point appear valid. Anyone that knows my collecting tastes knows that I could care less about "grade" in many situations. But this just comes off as bad advice to new collectors, IMHO.
Just to add to @Curtis's explanations for how obv. and rev. can differ in the relevant way, die wear can be very different (they were replaced at different times - this is what's going on with Curtis's tet I'd say), and burial conditions can involve very different conditions for obv and rev. With the Bithynian temple coin this thread is about, I'd bet both are involved, as well as strike. I don't think Warren's saying that at all, @Ryro! I think he's just saying that smoothing and unintentional scratches (from cleaning) shouldn't automatically be seen as major problems, and one shouldn't lose sight of all the other relevant features of a coin. He knows you appreciate those other features (style, history, type, strike, die state, etc.) very much. And if you have a thing against smoothing, that's also OK of course! To each his/her own. The "average" serious collector, though, doesn't see non-excessive smoothing on bronze as a major defect. I think we'd all agree that IF this coin has received significant tooling, that's a very bad thing. But there's a difference of opinion on that question. It's important to separate that issue from the general issue of whether tooling is a bad thing. I think we'd all agree that it is. I do think you're making a mistake if you equate intentional tooling with smoothing, esp. field smoothing. The first detracts from a coin vastly more than the second IMO. (Again, though, to each his/her own!) That's not to say I haven't rejected coins for what I saw as excessive smoothing. I've sent coins back to Frank Robinson for this reason. (His photos often don't show it.)
Let’s not forget that OP got his first gold coin instead of this shameful, over-tooled representative of numismatic shenanigans. A very nice Justinian I, which is a great choice for a first solidus. Congrats, @Restitutor ! Now everybody’s happy....right?
That is a valid point, well stated and appreciated. I very much do agree that, and probably at least partially due to modern coin collecting, newbies do focus waaaay to much on grade and encapsulation. There is a ton more fun to the hobby than worrying about that. I may have read that with a critical eye as I do get passionate about folks, IMO, destroying ancients by trying to "gussy" them up for buyers. Though, sadly we do know it is effective and they are making money doing it... often poorly. My apologies if I came off as harsh. And many thanks for spelling it out for me Sevs. Even if I do have the best MSC collection on CT. I'm still, clearly, a relative noob.
I am with some others here. I call it cleaning/smoothing. The lines are a little more noticeable due to design, but if you are cleaning between columns one would expect that type of cleaning marks. I call it a good coin. I think the obverse supports that opinion.
Th Hadrian from Bithynia hasn't been tooled. There are some cleaning scratches and perhaps some light smoothing on the reverse in the fields. I'd want to see the coin in hand to be certain as it's possible it's just cleaned and waxed, which can look like smoothing in a photograph. Barry Murphy
