Rediscovery

Agreed...been looking... Maybe could use a little guidance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I really wanted to attempt another photo of this coin, especially after JA whipped out his Nabatean silver.

The Himyarite Tribal Confedracy
(Homeric Kingdom) Southern Arabia (Modern Yeman, Oman)
s. 50-100 AD
Anonymous Issue (Scyphate "cup-shaped")
Raidan, Arabia
AR Half-Drachm 14.8 mm x 1.32g
Obv. Male Head right monogram behind.
Rev. Small Male Head right. Himyar Script. Trident monogram
ref. Mitcher 373
Note: Uber Scyphate.

 

Lovely coin. I don't have any Himyarite yet, but CNG's got a few nice ones up for auction at the moment, so it may not be long.

 

Very nice Master Noob.

 

Great job Bing! Love looking at your stuff thanx. May the new computer hold the "magic smoke" inside for many years.....

 

Nice looking coin Noob

 

nice job AN...man those things are very difficult to take a picture of.

i gave up on mine and used seller pics, i'll try again some day.

 

I posted this Constantine in my LRB thread already, but I'm putting it here because I re-imaged it today. I wasn't happy with the first pics. This is a good example of a coin that's been waxed, or perhaps lacquered, probably during a time when waxing your coins was de rigeur in the hobby.

The obverse is artificially glossy, but on the lower half of the reverse, the wax has worn off, or perhaps wasn't sufficiently applied, and there is a distinctly flat area. I thought of giving this coin a bath in acetone, but perhaps it's better to keep it as it is, as an example of an old school of thought.

Other than reasons of conservation, ie., sealing a coin after BD treatment, I don't think wax is ever necessary. It certainly wasn't on this coin - there is some very minor surface roughness in a few spots, but nothing that disqualifies it from a gFV grade.

 

WOW, very nice!

 

Yes, but imagine the entire coin looking like the flat area on the reverse, and you get an idea why it was fashionable to wax coins. The shine gives it great eye-appeal, artificial as it is.

 

Thank you...In Learning-Mode...

 

I don't want to digress the great thread: Is Renaissance Wax ok?

 

I use it on coins that I've treated for BD, to minimize the coins' contact with moisture in the air. That's the only time I've ever used RenWax.

Also, I'm in learning mode too. Nobody on this forum should take my opinions as Gospel Truth. I'm a complete novice. If Ardy, or Doug, or Warren, or Martin come along and tell me it's not wax, just a natural variation in the patina, I'm going to go with them.

 

I put Ren Wax on a couple of bronze coins after empiric treatment with VerdiCare. I was surprised that there was no sheen. Maybe it has to be buffed, but I didn't do that.

I'm not applying Ren Wax to any other coins for fear of trapping moisture in, even though I dried the above two coins in a warm oven prior to wax application.

 

Yeah, RenWax doesn't give you much of a sheen. Maybe you have to buff it. But lacquer was once a common treatment as well.

 

Yes, I had noted your comment on RenWax before, and why I asked...great info to ONLY wax should you be fixing an issue or post BD repair... After your earlier comments, I got some VerdiCare and RenWax as a future preventative should I ever need it. Thanks for the tips!!!
Staying in Learning-Mode...

 

Here's another coin of the same type with unaltered surfaces. This is a re-shoot as well, and it's a little better than my original effort. The bust is difficult to light since the profile is lightly engraved - the line of the nose is very weak.

 

here's a follis of constans ii that i redid yesterday, it looks a bit better...

old...




new...

 

Looks a lot better (but I am missing the narly table top).

 

Ugh, I HAVE to learn how to use that PIXL photo editor that @Bing linked me to months ago...