Valentinian II AE-4

Regardless, leave it be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm undecided about that one. In fact, I don't think you can tell for certain without trying to wash some of it off. And even if it were fake, the sand wouldn't wash off unless the coin doctor used a water-soluble glue. Pishpash's advice is quite sound, as you can see from my Falling Horseman. If you like the coin, leave it alone!

Here are a few things to consider...

Does the dealer's inventory consist of a large quantity of coins with desert patinas? Are the patinas all the same color and texture? I've noticed that this type of color and texture, light tan and very fine, is used by a lot of doctors. It's like there's a Fake Desert Patina R Us store somewhere, where they all get their craft supplies.

 

Wow, Pish made a crappy coin look great and Big John made a great coin look crappy!

 

Interesting.
If the glue does not harm the coin I guess I will leave it be. Thanks John.

 

JA, the results are startling...I would guess the 'artificial' patina would almost immediately wash off rather easily, while the natural patina would be a bit more resistant...

I guess what I'm asking ...what's the preferred way to distinguish the two without weakening the natural type?

And, it seems like your coin MM is legit...or is it??

 

Like I said, it comes down to personal preference. I don't mind a little bit of tooling and smoothing, and certainly no collector of ancients can object to cleaning. Those are all things we consider to be conservation.

Fake desert patinas are intended to cover rough surfaces and highlight details. Whether you're OK with that is up to you. I am not. I would prefer a coin with good surfaces. However, dirt is millions of years old, so really - does it matter if it accrued on the coin over 2000 years or 2 minutes?

 

Let me also be up front, and say that I have intentionally bought coins from dealers that glue dirt on their coins, namely Nabataeans. That's because extremely few dealers have any Nabataeans for sale, and sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad and the ugly. So I'm not being the least bit judgmental - we all draw our lines somewhat differently.

 

Sorry for the repetition JA, it seems we all are responding about the same time......Your points are well taken. Thanks again.

 

That would be Steve's line.

 

"And, it seems like your coin MM is legit...or is it?"
I think the Mag. Max. is genuine. The seller Aegean numismatics, does not have any coins with that dark red hue patina.

 

After a bottle (or two) of red wine.

 

"After a bottle (or two) of red wine."

A little mad dog never hurt anyone

 

The more I look at the MM, the more I think it's original. Someone just did a very good job cleaning it up - taking away just enough dirt to highlight the devices without overdoing it.

 

Hmmm, that roadwork looks like the handiwork of a friend of mine who works at the local H'way Dep't.....He always has the 'breakfast of 'champions'--Beer and Eggs!! LOL

 

Genuine original "desert patina" (I call the orange version "black and tan patina") is common on coins of Antioch. A similar patina, sometimes whiter, is sometimes found on coins of Cyzicus, Constantinople, Alexandria, and less commonly Thessalonica. It is rare on coins of Siscia. It is possible that a coin of Siscia ended up in the region of Antioch or Asia Minor and got a natural desert patina, but I don't think one found in the region of Siscia would have such a patina.

 

Not sure if I should just pass on that Valentinian II coin? Any advice?

 

Don't eat yellow snow.

 

Unless I have misread everyones comments and qualifications, the consensus seems to be that it is a nice buy at the price you mentioned...I'd grab it since so many are of much inferior grade and details...

 

get it!