the "smoothing" process

What happened with my Trajan Decius Double Sestertius?

Perhaps BD or encrustrations were scooped out of the eye, leaving the weird look?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The term smoothing has been around as long as I remember, and I’ve been dealing in ancients for nearly 35 years. Just for fun, I searched CNA IV from 1988 and found the term there. I chose that catalog because that was the first year I was seriously involved in ancients (I have dabbled since 1984).

At NGC, we use the term smoothing only if the original metal of the coin has been altered. The removal or flattening of encrustations or deposits does not constitute smoothing. Normally it’s in the fields, but occasionally you’ll see it on the neck or cheek of a portrait.

doucet, your Hadrian has been smoothed, tooled and repatinated. It’s almost just a modern forgery at this point, except the flan is ancient. I know who did the work and you really have to be careful buying from him.

Barry Murphy

 

Yeah, I think @Insider is too involved in US coins and their mindset. For all US coins, unburied coins exist. For ancients, that simply is not true. If a coin was not buried it simply ceased to exist, the burial preserved them. However, just like dug US coins, (which US collectors immediately declare "damaged" because they can, non-dug coins exist for such new coins), you will have surface imperfections and dirt adhered to ancients that need to be cleaned. Fact of life if you wish to own these items.

So, we simply accept an ancient coin MUST be cleaned after recovery, and the fact cleaning will usually entail some contact with the coin's surface. Given those facts, if the surface is smoothed a little because of mechanical friction to remove surface contaminants, I call that acceptable. Fields are smooth, so cleaners know any bumps are foreign. Someone taking a dremel to a coin surface of course is intentional altering. Also, to me, any intentional changing of the devices is basically altering the coin, so that is where it changed to me to tooling, which is always unacceptable in my eyes.

Modern coins, (which includes 100% of US coins), are little prissy prima donnas in comparison to ancients, and views and assumptions for them are simply incongruous to ancient coins IMHO. Modern coin assumptions have absolutely no place in ancients, where people were collecting, researching, and developing grading systems and standards centuries before the first Pilgrim shot a turkey. I collected US coins for a couple of decades before switching over, so understand exactly how they are bringing this baggage not applicable to us from.

 

Here is my tooled/smoothed "modern"

 

Kentucky, posted: "Here is my tooled/smoothed "modern"

View attachment 1482816 View attachment 1482817 View attachment 1482818

That will make it much easier to sell! That's the point of all these "flowery" words for a fraudulently altered surface - no?

As long as you understand that the surface of your coin has been altered, you can call it smoothing, burnishing or tooling. Some of these alterations are done very well. Additionally, I'm in 100% agreement with many of you, fixing the corrosion or covering the defects on the surface of an ancient makes it look much better!

Barry Murphy, posted: "The term smoothing has been around as long as I remember, and I’ve been dealing in ancients for nearly 35 years. Just for fun, I searched CNA IV from 1988 and found the term there. I chose that catalog because that was the first year I was seriously involved in ancients (I have dabbled since 1984)."

My bad! I forget how long I've been a professional coin authenticator.
Wow, 1988. That explains why the word "smoothing" is just some "modern concoction" to me. Thirty-four years seems like yesterday. So, as I originally posted, IMO "smoothing" is some "weasel word" cooked up to to cover an entire spectrum of surface repairs.

Given that this alteration has been going on for centuries, I would forever be in debt to the person who could find one of the earliest usages of "smoothing" in
print. Perhaps in a late 1970's auction. I'll try to remember to post my article here when it is printed. Unfortunately, none of my ancients have been "smoothed" so I'm waiting to get a magnified image. I may need to use a U.S. Colonial copper but an Ancient would be best.

 

I dare say that this coin has been cleaned (dist. water and a light brush), but not smoothed. Verified by the cleaner (me)

 

You still don't get it when it comes to ancient coins.

 

I get the impression that the diggers who find these bronze coins sometimes cut the thick patina with a pick or knife, probably in order to check out the coin, and if the encrustacions come off easily. The scar over the cheek on your TD looks like this.

 

DonnaML, posted: "You still don't get it when it comes to ancient coins"

Actually, if you read this AGAIN, I think you will see I do get it:

Insider, posted: "As long as you understand that the surface of your coin has been altered, you can call it smoothing, burnishing or tooling. Some of these alterations are done very well. Additionally, I'm in 100% agreement with many of you, fixing the corrosion or covering the defects on the surface of an ancient makes it look much better!"

Summary:

1. What I think does not matter.
2. The majority of Ancients have not survived in pristine condition.
3. The majority of Ancients need to be restored to some acceptable condition as close to their former beauty as possible.
4. All skill/knowledge levels are involved in some way with finding, researching, restoring, buying, and selling Ancients.
5. Most Ancient collectors are very knowledgeable about the coins they collect.
6. 100% original Ancients and those that pass examination as 100% original, outside of untouched hoard coins, are scarce.
7. "Market Acceptability" is a moving concept with time.
8. Collectors of Ancients have their own basic "rules" covering what is acceptable in their field and what is not.
9. Folks who sell coins need/want to get the highest price and anything they can do that is considered moral and acceptable within those rules makes them honest in the eyes of their peers.
10. WORDS MEAN SOMETHING! However, if I choose to "water down" my assessment so I can say a person who's body is ravaged with Leprosy is just sick, that works.
11. What you think is all that matters.

Clear?

 

I don't understand no. 6. What do you mean by "original"?

 

I guarantee that there are some ancients that exist which are in 100% original "fresh-off-the-anvil" FDC and cannot be proven to be otherwise. These I include with other ancients that exist in a condition that appears to be 100% original FDC. Many coins bought an sold as FDC are technically not. But who cares? Fortunately for me, but of no consequence when it comes to grading Ancients, I work at a degree of examination that far surpasses 99% of others around the world. Not Brag , just fact.

PS If I still worked at NGC, I would probably be conserving coins But I assure you that I would have found a way to work at least part time at NGC Ancients because authenticating "metal" is basically the same.

 

So if a coin is found buried and the dirt is cleaned off, it's no longer "original" in your view? You do realize that ALL ancient coins were found in the ground, and required cleaning to a greater or lesser extent?

 

It's late and past my bedtime but you deserve an answer. [Self Edit] IMO, you already know the answer. Remember what I wrote: "Most Ancient collectors are very knowledgeable about the coins they collect." I should think that applies to you so please don't prove me wrong.

For anyone less knowledgeable than our friend, please understand this: IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT HAPPENED TO A COIN BEFORE IT REACHED YOUR HAND. *** This especially applies to Ancient coins BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT AROUND all those centuries before you got to touch it.

Therefore, as soon as it gets into our grubby little hands, we make a PERSONAL DETERMINATION OF ITS STATE OF PRESERVATION! Then, if it looks totally original as struck, and you have an ounce of knowledge about what you are
doing - you just might come up with a correct determination of its originality. For some folks making assessments like this over decades with the proper light and magnification is child's play. The only complication comes when we need to
"play the game" by making up a flowery word to describe what we see or ignore obvious signs of minor alteration and wear to please others seeking market acceptability.

***In class, I tell the story of the most perfect gold coin of any denomination
(it was a Type 3 dollar) I ever saw under a stereo microscope . The proverbial little old lady sat before my desk in the Birkler & Waddell Coin Gallery and dumped the contents of a tattered black silk change purse on to my blotter. In the pyramid pile of threads, dirt, dust, trinkets, and circulated junk US and Foreign coins, I reached into the filth and plucked out that perfectly preserved, flawless, brilliant, frosty gem (MS-68+ or MS-69 by today's standards) unbelievable, coin. I blew off the dirt and there was not even one microscopic hairline visible. I'd say that coin was original as struck regardless of its history! What do you folks think?

Good Night & Sleep Well

 

I am indebted to you for posting this! This is exactly how I would have envisioned a circulated, worn, non-smoothed, and non-tooled sestertius looking.

In particular I note that there are no sharp edges remaining anywhere on this coin. This illustrates why I am always suspicious of AEs that exhibit this state of wear/circulation and yet somehow manage to retain sharp edges around the devices.

Less-worn examples of AEs are more likely to have better-defined devices and legends, with sharper edges, but for AEs in this condition/grade, I would be wary if they exhibited sharper detail than this coin.

 

Sorry, I'm still completely baffled by what you mean when you pronounce an ancient coin "original," and whether a coin found in the ground would qualify as such in your opinion after the dirt were cleaned off. If it would still qualify, then what about after removing encrustations? Your posts on this issue are still remarkably devoid of specifics when it comes to ancient coins.

 

I'm posting because I thought this thread needed some more practical knowledge. Here are 2 examples of carefully smoothed coins. The left is before and the right after.

Both coins are mine. I know they are smoothed because I smoothed them. The deep gouge on Hadrian's neck was unacceptable to me so I smoothed it using 0000 steel wool which, I believe, is the number one choice of coin smoothers. I could have completely removed the gouge but I felt that would be overdoing it. I just knocked it down some. Before you accuse me of smoothing the whole coin, I was very careful to restrict my activities to the neck gouge only. Any other areas that may look different to you are simply due to different photography and lighting.

The Domna had faintly pinkish/purplish gunk on it which I stripped off using sodium sesquicarbonate. At this point I was unsure as to whether or not the gunk was natural, or something applied by someone to disguise flaws. You can certainly see the flaws in the after photo. The coin was then lightly smoothed (all over) and repatinated. Yes, the patina is modern, done with Jax, wax, and an electric oven.
(If I were to sell this I would certainly inform the buyer of this fact.)

I could write a fat thesis on fake patinas but the last time I tried to impart some of my knowledge here on that subject it didn't exactly go over well....so please don't ask.