A Dreadfully Re-cut and Smoothed Divus Augustus Dupondius - or am I being too harsh?

I have long since put this one down to 'The Ignorance of Youth'. Don't even remember what I paid, but it probably (hopefully!) wasn't too much.

Loved the well defined bust and nice patina, but oversaw what is IMO obvious re-cutting, and smoothing/field tooling.

Tell me how bad is this one really - Or am I being too harsh?

(have added a few examples from acsearch for comparison)

Thanks to all in advance for your opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I tend to be more tolerant than some so I have no problem at all with the smoothing within the fields......and I can even easily live with the 'tooling'---if in fact that is what it seems to be---since it doesn't seem to alter the coin but enhance it in a very attractive way. Frankly, like you, I'm not entirely sure it has been tooled and I'd buy it at the right price

 

Ditto from me.

 

The smoothing on this coin is within the normal range of smoothing that I've seen on Roman bronzes. I wouldn't find this amount of smoothing to be excessive or a reason not to buy this bronze.

I'm hard pressed to find any obvious tooling. Maybe on the obverse portrait between the ear and the radiate crown -- possibly the delineation has been enhanced a bit. Also on the reverse, the area between the legend and bead of the coin might have been smoothed/dug out a little more deeply to enhance the separation of the letters. The seated figure might have been a little bit re-engraved.

Is that what you're thinking? Overall, this coin does not scream out "tooled!"

 

I agree with Ides' take on this one but it remains a fact that I prefer less and would pay less considering the smoothing but do not know whether I would have liked the pre-smoothing coin better or not at all.

I watched a TV show on painting restoration where they showed the process of making an oil painting worth the millions such things sell for. They cleaned it removing the dirt of time that stuck to the surface. We do that with our coins. This painting had a tear through the canvas. They showed several steps where the rip was glued with gesso and overpainted with a non-oil paint before the entire thing was sprayed with the oil painting equivalent of RenWax to make it even and pretty. Each step was done with reversibility in mind. The glue was weak; the colors added were not oil but water based so the whole repair could be wiped off. I was envious of the painting crowd since they found a way to repair the appearance of the work without so much changing the surviving parts so a later, more expert, future restorer could revert to the most recent starting point. We don't have such high tech techniques as would seem necessary by the fact that few of our coins are worth the millions of some of those oils. I'm glad we have coins for me that don't require so much attention.

 

As a dealer It may be that I can see more than others do since I handle a LOT of coins. Yes, it is tooled, mostly in the lettering, but also in the hairlines on the obverse and the drapery on the reverse. So, the question is are you too critical or not? That depends entirely on your personality. I have few problems with smoothing unless it is extreme and poorly done. I dont like tooling at all and will not buy a coin that I know has been.

Wait, no, as a dealer I sometimes buy whole collections, so I guess tooling is a possibility (though in all my years only a few examples I have sold, and expressly made known). It just depends on what you are willing to accept as modified and of course the price.

I sold this coin just two years ago. I wish I had not as it is completely within my collecting interests (but alas, as a poor dealer I have to feed my kids, so off it went):



When I first posted it I received criticizing e-mails saying it was tooled. Before I bought it I had questioned the best minds in the business (yes, all the biggest names you all know and many you dont). All said the same, "not tooled, but lightly smoothed, but yes, we were offered it too but didnt like the price." Well, I did buy it, and it did sell (but I didnt make any money, that is why they are multi-millionaires and I struggle to pay by electric bill!). So, what level of alteration are you willing to accept? What price? One can only answer that for themselves!

 

Thanks -- you confirmed my suspicions that IF it was tooled, those are the areas in which the tooling was evident. It helps my learning process.

 

Thank you all very much for your opinions, which I have read with great attention.

Ken essentially confirms what my inexperienced eyes and 'gut-feel' were telling me:
The area of tooling that 'offends' me the most is on the seated future. In my opinion it looks almost grotesque. The drapery has been reworked and looks unnatural.
I also feel the reverse fields have been tooled/smoothed (to remove roughness I guess), made evident by the fact the branch on the seated figure has disappeared. This surface tooling, however, is still within my tolerance level.
I also feel the reverse legends had been strengthened and worked-on a bit, but again, this is to me at least, is on the verge of being 'acceptable'.

It is the tooling of the seated figure that bothers me most, and If I keep this coin is because the bust itself is pleasing and of good style.
The price I paid, even If I do not remember it with certainty, was probably in the 200-300 DM range back in 1990 (probably $250-350 today), so not a great financial loss and at that level I can afford to keep it and not have a sour feeling about it.