the "smoothing" process

I think you misunderstand my point, which was intended to be very simple: removing anything (dirt, encrustation, some of the original metal, etc.) from the surface of a coin makes the surface literally smoother. Period. Therefore cleaning a coin is also smoothing the coin's surface, in the most literal sense of the word "smoothing." It's irrelevant whether the removal was done chemically or using a dentist's pick or some other tool.

Now, nobody is going to define removing purely dirt or encrustations from a coin's surface as "smoothing" since that's not a reasonable definition of the word. But even though I've never cleaned an ancient coin, I assume that it's possible to unintentionally remove some of the coin's surface when trying to clean off a particularly stubborn encrustation. Is this smoothing? Probably, depending on your definition of the word. Is it acceptable smoothing? I guess that depends on what you find acceptable in the coins you acquire.

I also have to assume that sometimes it's not possible to differentiate between encrustations and the coin's original surface when cleaning a coin. Maybe the coin has a lot of raised bumps that appear to be encrustations and the individual decides to remove them during the cleaning process. If the bumps were really encrustations and not original metal, then the coin hasn't been smoothed; but if the bumps were part of the coin's original surface and made during the striking process, then the coin has been smoothed. Is it possible to tell the difference? If so, how?

My conclusion is that any judgement of whether a coin has been just cleaned, smoothed, or overly smoothed will have a large subjective component to that judgement. So for my collecting purposes, unless a coin has been overly smoothed to the point of detracting from that coin's original state, I'm comfortable with the probability that many of the bronzes I own may have areas of smoothing.

Personally, I would define this as tooling, but I understand the position that tooling only involves eliminating material from the coin but not adding to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Ides
You gave us this as a numismatic definition of "smoothing"
"Smoothing: Removal of parts of a coin's original surface and/or naturally occurring patina to make the surface smoother and more even with any gouges or pitting that may have occurred after the coin was struck."

By this definition, the removal of debris ON the surface of a coin is not the same as removing elements below or within the surface of a coin.

But now you appear to backtrack:

May we review that?

If we use the definition you gave us, then this situation can be resolved without compromising your definition. No need to relativize it. The slippery slope which keeps tripping you up is going back and forth between your formal definition of "smoothing" and the colloquial use of this word i.e., "to make smooth." The word "smoothing" as a reference to a process or procedure in numismatics, by your definition has a particular character, i.e. "Removal of parts of a coin's original surface..." Whatever we do isn't smoothing until that starts to happen. That is how a definition works.

Now, if and when there's a question as to whether or not the original surface has been penetrated, the burden of proof is upon those making the claim that this has taken place (which approaches the question from the positive).

Your definition is good. Hang on to it.

 

desertgem, asked: "Would tooling be the proper designation where holes for attachment chains or cords were filled in a rare silver coin by a plug from a less valuable same composition coin and smoothed out for display or selling?"

IMO, (I write this so as not to offend anyone. Be offended as I'm going to stop doing it. )

This is what I learned: Filling a hole in a coin (no matter how well and undetectable it is done is a REPAIR. This type of repair has a name - "plugged." In order to make this repair, very often metal is moved on the coin's surface to blend the surface or level the plug. That is a form of tooling - moving metal on a coin's surface.

 

I didn't mean to imply that I was altering my original definition of smoothing, which I still believe is the most reasonable definition. I just meant to point out that it's possible to be overly pedantic about the definition of smoothing, which as I write above, is definitely NOT a reasonable definition of the term.

Yes, this seems to be the best term to distinguish between removing material and adding material to a coin.

***EDIT***
OK, so what term is used to describe coins to which details have been added? They're not tooled, not repaired... enhanced?

 

Believe it or not, I respect you IOM and know nothing about ancients compaired to you.

However, please take this as the way it is intended.

IdesOfMarch01, posted: "I think you misunderstand my point, which was intended to be very simple [I understand your point completely as your writing is very clear. It is so simple that you have turned it into pure misinformed nonsense that leads to all the uneducated opinions and fuss over easily to teach concepts.]

"...removing anything (dirt, encrustation, some of the original metal, etc.) from the surface of a coin makes the surface literally smoother. Period. [Let's please cut this EDIT. Yeah, and when I blow on the coin the surface gets rough. PLEASE STOP. You were talking about removing ANYTHING - that includes oil!] Therefore cleaning a coin is also smoothing the coin's surface, in the most literal sense of the word "smoothing." It's irrelevant whether the removal was done chemically or using a dentist's pick or some other tool."

Unfortunately, due to your deserved status, you can continue to influence folks around here that removing some debris chemically is smoothing but that will never make it correct. I suggest members take one of the ANA's grading or conservation courses to learn what the professionals say about these subjects and methods. While not focused on ancients, the things you will learn still apply. The important thing is to become informed so when we use a word, most know what it actually means.

IOM get's it: Now, nobody is going to define removing purely dirt or encrustations from a coin's surface as "smoothing" since that's not a reasonable definition of the word. But even though I've never cleaned an ancient coin, I assume that it's possible to unintentionally remove some of the coin's surface when trying to clean off a particularly stubborn encrustation [which has become a part of the coin's surface]. Is this smoothing? [NO] Probably, depending on your definition of the word. Is it acceptable smoothing? I guess that depends on what you find acceptable in the coins you acquire.


More later we are updating the computer
I also have to assume that sometimes it's not possible to differentiate between encrustations and the coin's original surface when cleaning a coin. Maybe the coin has a lot of raised bumps that appear to be encrustations and the individual decides to remove them during the cleaning process. If the bumps were really encrustations and not original metal, then the coin hasn't been smoothed; but if the bumps were part of the coin's original surface and made during the striking process, then the coin has been smoothed. Is it possible to tell the difference? If so, how?

My conclusion is that any judgement of whether a coin has been just cleaned, smoothed, or overly smoothed will have a large subjective component to that judgement. So for my collecting purposes, unless a coin has been overly smoothed to the point of detracting from that coin's original state, I'm comfortable with the probability that many of the bronzes I own may have areas of smoothing.


Personally, I would define this as tooling, but I understand the position that tooling only involves eliminating material from the coin but not adding to it.[/QUOTE]

 

I can accept Insider's definition with very few reservations:
1. I would add the word "selective" in several places to separate coins whose details were favored as opposed to getting the same treatment as the whole coin. This would allow placing a coin in your pocket or feeding it to a goat as forms of cleaning rather than a term more nefarious.

2. "Addition" is a term I don't like because it suggests the possibility of adding material to provide something to cut away. The red letter notes cover this but I'd prefer a word like "modification". Addition is a repair. A repair is not necessarily worse than tooling or even heavy handed smoothing poorly executed. It can be hard to tell if a smoothed or tooled coin has a plug. In general, any modification includes a free licence for lower level sins. Tooled coins are also smoothed; repaired coins are either smoothed, tooled or both and are not required to be noted as such separately.

3. No one can show an example of 'good' smoothing unless they are willing to provide before and after images and admit to doing it. This is the classic question of whether a tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound. If you can tell what was done, it could have been done better. If no one can tell it was done..... was it? "All ancients were cleaned" is a situation I can accept as fact. "All smooth coins were smoothed" is conspiracy theory.

 

This statement is a corollary to what I've been trying to elucidate in my posts, namely, what's a reasonable definition of "smoothing" and more specifically, how I define smoothing for the coins in which I'm interested.

So I started from the literal meaning of "smooth" and "smoothing." I clearly (I thought) wrote that the literal definition, if applied to coins, would mean that even simple cleaning was smoothing, but of course you had to read the rest of my post to understand that I did NOT believe that was a reasonable definition.

Because I've never cleaned a coin myself, I can't possibly be an expert on whether or not a particular ancient coin has been smoothed. And in fact, as Doug writes above, I'm sure there are coins that only the original person who cleaned that coin would know whether or not the coin was also smoothed.

Has my Caligula sestertius that I posted earlier in this thread been smoothed? Personally, I can't tell; if an expert told me one way or another, I would probably accept that expert's opinion, but it wouldn't make any difference on having the coin in my collection. On the other hand, if the expert told me it had been excessively smoothed or tooled, then I would accept that expert's opinion and would not acquire the coin. That's why I pay my dealer his commission to evaluate and bid on coins on my behalf.

It should be clear that I and many (if not most) other collectors on this site are willing to accept some smoothing on our coins, partly because we ourselves can't really determine whether or not a coin has been smoothed. Heck, even after collecting ancients for 10 years, I'm never even sure whether or not a particular coin has been tooled.

 

This thread has become entertaining. I often shake my head when when people try to over-examine things. To paraphrase an important American supreme court case, I'll know it when I see it. Take it easy people! Just enjoy your coins (whether smoothed or not!).

 

Plug filling would probably be a different category, In ancients, tooling means doctoring a coin, but filling a complete hole is usually not part of it. However, I would disagree with @Insider that tooling never involves adding anything to a coin. Many times new metal or new "toning" is added to "add value" to a coin. It is usually just tooling of existing metal but that is mainly to lower chances of getting caught, but ground up real patinas glued on to cover up the tooling is common I hear.

Maybe it is semantics, but I have only thought of smoothing as pertaining to the fields. @IdesOfMarch01 posts an interesting coin with smoothing on the main device. To me, (and I could be totally wrong), "messing" with the devices I could call tooling even though its the same action as performed in the fields. Maybe my definition is wrong, but I call innocent or incidental smoothing of fields while cleaning acceptable, intentional smoothing of FIELDS smoothing, and messing with devices in any way tooling. The reason is the fields are incidental to the coin, but the devices and lettering are key, and messing with them more severe.

Good discussion.

 

I agree, good discussion. One other thing (as usual ): If some conniving, flower-mouthed, greedy, numismatist (?) had never come up with that nonsensical word "SMOOTHING" to describe fraudulently
altered coins, we would not be having this amount of confusion. Note that no one talks anymore about the US Large cents that were formerly altered in many ways to make them more attractive. They are album weeds and curiosities. The same thing has been done to ancient coins and they are market acceptable because THAT'S ALL WE HAVE!

Before commenting further let me describe some of the things folks do to coins. Most of them occur in degrees of severity. Imagine a coin - the green one posted above. The coin is corroded. That is not the way it dropped off the die. Nevertheless, to my eyes, it is a beautiful coin. I believe folks call the green corrosion products on its surface a "patina." What can we do to this coin to ruin it?

1. We can put it in a chemical that will strip it. That's called CHEMICAL CLEANING.

2. We can buff it with a rotating wire brush. That's called MECHANICAL CLEANING.

3. We can pick away at its relief surface with a sharp tool for different reasons - including adding or strengthing the design detail. That's called TOOLING.

4. We can add metal to the surface to build it up or hide something like a crack. That's called a REPAIR. Repairs can also be done w/o adding any metal but by modifying the texture of the surface.

5. We can add a substance like sand, paint, shoe polish, etc. to the surface for whatever the reason. That's called a SURFACE ALTERATION.

Note: All these terms were in use by professional authenticators and graders decades before that word "smoothed" was cooked-up to sell altered coins more easily.

Now let's talk about "degrees of" and "severity of" these treatments. Mechanical Cleaning is the easiest to understand. My camel's hair brush cleans the surface but usually does no harm. My toothpaste on a brush cleans it as does my brillo pad , and don't forget the Dremel.

Tooling is another thing. Often a surface is "burnished" (smoothed out with a tool) or "chased" when surface metal is pushed around for whatever the reason. Tooling (burnishing = smooth/chased = smooth/tooled = sharp) is a surface alteration of a different nature than surface alterations done using chemicals. Tooling is never called mechanical cleaning by any knowledgeable, professional numismatist I have known! Now just to defuse any nonsensical comments...if I take a tool (even a rose thorn) and pick a bit of debris from the center of the letter "D" ...YES I'VE CLEANED THE COIN! But PLEASE...

IdesOfMarch01, posted: "I didn't mean to imply that I was altering my original definition of smoothing, which I still believe is the most reasonable definition. I just meant to point out that it's possible to be overly pedantic about the definition of smoothing, which as I write above, is definitely NOT a reasonable definition of the term.

Then why use it? You say it is OK and then that it is NOT! Words mean something.

IOM continued: "Yes, this seems to be the best term to distinguish between removing material and adding material to a coin. OK, so what term is used to describe coins to which details have been added? They're not tooled, not repaired... enhanced?"

"Enhanced" is a great word. Nice and flowery to hide the repair or reengraved design detail! When details are added to a coin outside the Mint we call it an "altered coin" as it has been tooled; has a tooled design, has reengraved details."

Adding material to a coin has nothing to do with moving a coin's original surface or anything on it! Adding things to a coin is an alteration.

It's later:

IOM continued: "I also have to assume that sometimes it's not possible to differentiate between encrustations and the coin's original surface when cleaning a coin. [many times that is the case] Maybe the coin has a lot of raised bumps that appear to be encrustations and the individual decides to remove them during the cleaning process. If the bumps were really encrustations and not original metal, then the coin hasn't been smoothed; but if the bumps were part of the coin's original surface and made during the striking process, then the coin has been smoothed. Is it possible to tell the difference? If so, how?

Bumps on a coin are raised. They would be pits in the die if they were part of the coin's design. Know what you are conserving is a good start. If they are not part of the design it is some form of corrosion. Removing them with an instrument is called tooling. Depending on how well it is done...Well: undetectable conservation/Poorly, it may become a SURFACE ALTERATION that lowers the coin's desirability. If you wish to call it smoothing, you are in good company. The word seems to have caught on with folks selling altered coins.

"My conclusion is that any judgement of whether a coin has been just cleaned, smoothed, or overly smoothed will have a large subjective component to that judgement. So for my collecting purposes, unless a coin has been overly smoothed to the point of detracting from that coin's original state, I'm comfortable with the probability that many of the bronzes I own may have areas of smoothing."

If that works for you...I have some more coins to smooth.

IdesOfMarch01, posted: "Because I've never cleaned a coin myself, I can't possibly be an expert on whether or not a particular ancient coin has been smoothed. And in fact, as Doug writes above, I'm sure there are coins that only the original person who cleaned that coin would know whether or not the coin was also smoothed."

You don't need to clean coins to tell it was not done correctly. The majority of Ancient coins with altered surfaces are easy to detect with a little study. There was an article this year in Numismatic News dealing with that weasel word - "smoothed."

medoraman, posted: "Plug filling [filling a hole by plugging it] would probably be a different category, In ancients, tooling means doctoring a coin, but filling a complete hole is usually not part of it. However, I would disagree with Insider that tooling never involves adding anything to a coin. Many times new metal or new "toning" is added to "add value" to a coin.

AHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh! Adding metal to a coin is called "ADDING METAL TO A COIN." When the added metal is moved around it is either a repair, chasing, or tooling. Adding color to a coin is NOT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!

Maybe it is semantics, but I have only thought of smoothing [forget about this word and everything becomes crystal clear]as pertaining to the fields. [That's the way it was originally cooked-up to be but as you can see in this thread, folks throw words around as they wish and now we are calling formes of cleaning "smoothing."] @IdesOfMarch01 posts an interesting coin with smoothing on the main device. To me, (and I could be totally wrong), "messing" with the devices I could call tooling even though its the same action as performed in the fields. Maybe my definition is wrong, but I call innocent or incidental smoothing of fields while cleaning acceptable, intentional smoothing of FIELDS smoothing, and messing with devices in any way tooling. The reason is the fields are incidental to the coin, but the devices and lettering are key, and messing with them more severe.

Bottom line: "smoothing" on any part of a coin is simply a form of TOOLING. Furthermore, "smoothing" is not cleaning by any stretch of the imagination!

 

I'm very glad you did. I forgot all about it. I'm going to turn this thread into a coin grading column as it is already written. EXCEPT FOR THIS: Much of the time, smoothing a coin DOES NOT REMOVE METAL - it either moves it to another location on the coin OR mostly compresses it.

Unfortunately, I did not think to correct that at the time this thread was active. The auction companies are going to hate me but the truth often hurts.

 

This Hostilian of mine looks like it's escaped any smoothing .

IdesOfMarch01, posted: "It might be educational and informative if someone were able to post side-by-side examples of the following:

1. An ancient bronze that has been cleaned but has verifiably not been smoothed.

Definitely not smoothed:


My toolie Aurelian and Severina double Sestertius would be a good example of tooling . No use digging it out as my picture would be a mediocre mess.The dealer described it as as extensively tooled, and it was my only way to get this particular denomination.

 

Dare I mention that this is probably the only alteration that can occur that can easily raise the value of the coin by sometime fantastic multiples. "Toning" with a positive value sign. Done by a knowledgeable coin chemist it is close to impossible to determine. The saving grace is that most coin chemists are not coin knowledgeable. IMO, !!!, Jim

 

before and after

An example for the discussion and your consideration.

I did not do this work. I bought the 'cleaned' example and later discovered pictures of the coin as it was before it was......enhanced?

 

This large Gallienus was sold as tooled and smoothed.

By "smoothed," it appears they meant "industrial file taken to fields:

 

.......Hi Doucet it has been a while since we've spoken...
Wow...That's a serious transformation....How did you find out about this enhancement?.....Paul

 

Hi Spanard,

Very nice to speak with you again.

It was a while ago so I don't remember exactly. I was probably looking around at other sold examples for price comparisons.

When I did run across these photos it was the Flan shape that was the give away.

As you know on Iberian coins, it's the flan shape most often the give away on the fake ones.

I don't post much anymore, but I like to read the posts from time to time. I always read yours.

Stay well.

Scott

 

Long ago I wrote this about smoothing and tooling:

http://augustuscoins.com/ed/numis/condition.html#IV

Someone above wrote that long ago smoothing was totally unacceptable. Perhaps that was true for US coins but it certainly was not the case for ancient coins and in particular sestertii. Many old major collections had numerous smoothed sestertii. It is in relatively recent times that some (especially US-coin) collectors have been horrified by alterations. Some collectors want everyone else to be horrified by alterations that are minor in the overall appearance of the coin. However, some of us still feel that if the coin is genuine and of historical interest, it is collectable even if the surface has been smoothed. Ancient coins are more than just condition (although slabs are influencing the perception of what ancient coins are). An intense focus on condition would remove much of the joy of the hobby for those of us who collect on a limited budget with emphasis on the history. If a collector wants to reject coins with smoothing, they certainly may. But, I don't they should try to tell the rest of us that we should reject them too.

 

That is pretty much how this newbie feels about smoothing too. If it's not overdone, I don't think it's that big a deal. Tooling, on the other hand, I won't accept. But then tooling is quite a different matter.