Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;IdesOfMarch01, post: 2118381, member: 39084&quot;]To my eye, the cleaned second coin is clearly an improvement over the first:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401400[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>As Doug has observed, the uncleaned areas in this original coin hide and/or obliterate some of the detail, and the cleaned coin represents a step forward without smoothing, tooling, or otherwise falsifying the coin&#039;s features:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401401[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>While the cleaned coin&#039;s surfaces still appear a bit rough, it&#039;s likely that this is what the coin looked like prior to collecting the deposits that were removed through cleaning, so there is no net loss of quality or detail</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not as big a fan of the artificially toned coin:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401402[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Toning, per se, is not a positive or negative effect on a coin&#039;s artistry or appeal (at least not to me).&nbsp; The one exception to this generalization are the gold Boscoreale aurei that have been toned due to impurities in either the gold flan or the dies used to strike them.&nbsp; I would agree that there is something extremely appealing about these aurei, even if I&#039;m not able to articulate that appeal.&nbsp; But in general, I don&#039;t think toning necessarily adds (or detracts) from a denarius&#039; appeal.</p><p><br /></p><p>My two best illustrations of this issue are the following:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401405[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>This coin has almost no toning and has clearly been cleaned (and maybe even polished) but is even more appealing in hand than in this picture.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401406[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Conversely, this Claudius denarius is extensively &quot;old cabinet&quot; toned and is also very appealing, even more so in hand.&nbsp; I doubt very much it would look as good to me if it were shiny and polished like the Cassius denarius.</p><p><br /></p><p>BTW, for AE coins, I generally don&#039;t regard their patina as &quot;toning&quot; similar to silver denarii.&nbsp; The &quot;patina&quot; in AE coins is considerably more than a surface tarnish and removing it materially changes most AE coins.&nbsp; This doesn&#039;t mean &quot;river patina&quot; AE coins, which appear to be very close to their natural bronze state, cannot be very attractive.&nbsp; Take, for example, this Caligula AD LOCUTIO sestertius (not mine) recently sold by NAC for around $800,000 (including exchange rate and buyer&#039;s fee):</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401407[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Is it more or less appealing than my coin that displays a normal AE patina:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]401408[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not sure which patina I find more attractive.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in