Never again buying raw ancients from online auctions.

Unfortunately, many auction houses do not disclose problems. Some do. You just have to figure out which are which and bid accordingly. Don't give up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I bet they’ll accept the return.

 

Really? I always thought cleaning only involved removing any dirt, debris, etc., that wasn't part of the coin's original surfaces. And tooling and smoothing is the removal of the coin's metal. Am I mistaken?

 

No. You are correct, IMHO.

 

Tooling is a matter of degree, and it's fairly silly for NGC to "body bag" any ancient coin that has even a microscopic amount of detectable tooling, as though there's some definitive line to be drawn between OK and not OK. The question for each collector is how much tooling is too much? Our answers to that question vary a lot, and they will vary depending on the coin. We've also seen egregious cases in this forum that are laughable, and that nobody would want in their collection (except as a joke piece).

Personally I'm not that keen on the Hadrian, more because of the smoothing (I expect the tooling is minimal); but I also think the price was appropriate for the coin, you weren't at all ripped off. I doubt you were ripped off by the others either. I will say that I think Frank's attitude to tooling (and especially smoothing) is pretty relaxed. That doesn't stop me from bidding in his auctions, it just informs my bidding.

As a beginner coming from modern coins, you're inclined to be unhappy with any amount of tooling. As you become more experienced, you might find that a little bit is sometimes acceptable.

I have no doubt that both auction houses will accept returns if you're unhappy with the amount of tooling on the coins (and if there is indeed some tooling).

 

Sorry Ras, but I don't buy that. If it cuts into the coin metal it's no longer just smoothing. Then it crosses over into tooling which alters the original coin. The distinction is important, and if we kept to it our communication would be less ambiguous.

 

My impression is what Ras is saying is closer to how the term is normally used. I also think "the coin's metal" isn't the relevant substance. Tooling might only cut into patina, but if it's sharpening devices, it's tooling. Smoothing may or may not take off parts of the coin's original metal, but it's exactly what it sounds like... sort of sanding the coin down, on fields or on devices or both.

Roughly, tooling = carving (applied very locally & specifically to devices/legends), and smoothing = sanding (normally over a larger surface all at once). At least that's what I've gathered from how numismatists normally use the terms.

 

I am not an expert on smoothing vs tooling of Roman Imperial bronze coins. But I do know how to find examples of the coins I am buying (or have bought) on web sites like acsearch.info. You can see what your coins should look like, and then decide if they have been significantly altered. You can then make the call.
I collect Roman Republican bronze and one of the most likely tooled coins of that series has both Julius Caesar and Octavian. The three examples below are from acsearch. I think the last two were altered (smoothed or cleaned aggressively) to give different silhouettes than the top coin. Julius lost his Adam's Apple. The top coin is of highest quality and is a 5 digit coin.

 

Actually, the coin's metal is the really essential relevant substance. When people gob on layers of artificial patina in orange, yellow, or whatever, then carve down through it to the metal surface to enhance the appearance of the coin, do we call it tooling or something else? We need to tighten up our lexicon so our communication is as sharp as our analysis. When you sit down with Victor England or Harlan Berk to discuss tooling, the first thing they do is set down their understanding of what that means. We need to do that, and get consistent at it. Otherwise we are out to sea without a lexicon.

The problem in this case is that when NGC slapped the term on a coin without explanation, none of us could be sure just exactly what shaped their judgement. The OP didn't like it that they would not put his coins in a slab, but assumed that they must know, so it must be true. Sad really.

 

Sadly, language doesn't typically work like that. We won't even be able to get the regulars on CoinTalk to use the term in a perfectly consistent manner... I guess we'll just have to keep asking "erm, what exactly do you mean by tooling?"

 

Smoothing does not necessarily mean sanding down the surface of the coin it could also include filling in some pits or other blemishes with a filler and then covering it up with a new surface. Bronze coins especially first and second century Roman sestertii can be a problem as some of them have been smoothed or tooled, with the work having being done decades or even centuries before. Thus even the smoothing and tooling can have an aged patina. I rarely buy sestertii or other aes coins unless I can see them first or have someone whom I trust look at them for me.

 

Thanks for clarifying their process and correcting my prior post.

Do you know if CNG examines the coins in hand, or just from the picture provided by the consignor?

 

They do their own photography.

 

That's impressive -- a lot of work, too.

On a different note:

So, you discover a coin on the ground from a hoard, pick it up, a chunk of dirt falls off, and you've "technically" tooled the coin? This definition of tooling is so extreme that it's unworkable and I doubt you'd find much agreement that cleaning a coin is tooling.
In my own collection efforts, I'll continue to apply the definition that I included in my first post in this thread, which is functionally the same as lrbguy's definition:

 

It is a lot of work which is why mistakes can happen. I think at least some of these specific coins should have been spotted though. But the OP should really contact the auction house and inform them of the issue. They will certain not ignore it, and if they differ in opinion they’ll say why and stand by their original assessment, or admit to the error and make everything all right. I’ve emailed them a couple times about tooled coins in my particular area of expertise and they changed the description right away. Sometimes tooling is hard to spot even in hand.

 

This is an interesting discussion, if a bit out of my league. It wasn't until late 2016 that I began collecting ancient bronze coins, and since that time I have been interested, sometimes baffled by all the stuff that can happen to an AE coin through the ravages of time and at the hands of restorers.

The tooling/cleaning/smoothing controversy is interesting. My coins are so low-grade and cheap that most of them don't appear to have much evidence of this kind of treatment, although I have seen tool marks where I suspect rough patina was smoothed, or over-cleaned.

Anyway, I wanted to share a sestertius of Faustina I that has crud on it. This crud appears to be of the same material as the coin itself (bronze/brass?) and is raised up from the surface of the original coin. The only way to remove it, as far as I can tell, would be to use a tool - it does not appear to be something a chemical could be used on. Again, I know almost nothing about this (and have no plans to do anything about this coin).

My question would be, couldn't this be legitimately cleaned by mechanical means, and wouldn't that, then, be "tooling" or "smoothing"?




Faustina I Æ Sestertius
(c. 141-160 A.D.)
Rome Mint
[DIVA] FAVSTINA, draped bust right /AETERNITAS S-C Aeternitas standing left, holding phoenix (nimbate right) on globe and holding up skirt.
RIC 1105a; Sear 4607.
(22.80 grams / 30 mm)

 

That would be smoothing. You use a “tool” which is why Ras said technically it is tooling, but that isn’t the true technical meaning of the term in the general numismatic lexicon. Tooling is altering the devices and legend in such a way that it is different from the original engraving. Although, because your encrustation is over a legend you’d probably obliterate it entirely. Still not true tooling, in my opinion.

 

Since we're nitpicking in this thread I might as well point out that I don't think this is quite right. Someone can alter a patinated coin so as to "restore" devices or legend to their originally engraved shape. That's still tooling.

 

Yes, and I think Nicholas would agree with you that he meant to write something like "...so as to "restore" devices or legend to their condition when the coin stopped circulating..." rather than "originally engraved shape."

 

But you can’t really restore it to its original state, right? It wouldn’t be the original state but a “restored” state. So unless you mean smoothing, I would agree that such “restoration” is tooling.