I think that you noted the key issue Lee. Transparency and honesty.
People want to buy a tooled coin, fine. A re-patinated one, fine. If all were labelled honestly as such then it would be fine from a consumer's point of view. Buy what you want, use your own judgement re price variation.
That said, Andrew's question is interesting. Let's say that there are two Andrew McCabe's in parallel universes. Andrew alpha lists everything he thinks might have been done to a coin - tooling, smoothing, over-cleaning, re-patination, etc. Andrew beta simply lists the coins. What is the difference in prices realized?
Shawn
I'm not sure this Andrew alpha actually reflects me, so I wanted to pull back on expectations. I do NOT list everything that might have happened to a coin. Here is among the defects I would not list
1. Where a coin's surface looks like a moonscape, and the photo shows that clearly, there's nothing to say. Likewise if there's a piece missing from the edge, a big hole, or anything else my 10 year old daughter could point out to me.
2. Where a coin has been inexpertly cleaned resulting in obvious damage to surfaces, and the photo shows that clearly, likewise. This includes cleaning that has attempted to highlight the design and kinda botched it up, cut up the surfaces, removes some
patina but not in a pretty way. What can one say? "Ugly coin"? That's for the buyer to assess. (but in contrast if it's the
type of cleaning that caused
fine surface scratches that are not plainly visible, especially to silver, then that absolutely should be mentioned).
3. Where a coin has been smoothly cleaned to a gloss finish like one smooths a jewel, with a buffed
patina. That's how nice bronzes were generally cleaned in olden times, rubbed, and one can for example easily see an old
patina aes grave with such surfaces that a modern cleaner wouldn't do. This was a matter of taste and practice. Modern repatination falls into the same bucket. I don't like the latter but many people consider it acceptable.
4. Where a major
auction house (NAC,
CNG) has already mentioned an interference with a given coin, and I'm reselling it, I'll generally use exactly the same wording, if it was reasonable at the time.
5. I don't grade my own coins for sale, my vendor (
Roma) does. The
buck stops with me saying to Richard "please mention such and such an issue", and he'll then use
his conventional term. "May have been mounted"; "coin appears to be
plated" for example.
Buyers have a duty to examine photos and buy on the basis of the photo and any descriptive modifiers.
Caveat emptor.
Sellers / consignors duty is to point out issues that may not be obvious from a photo such as a deliberately recut (strengthened) design, i.e. tooling, or where parts of a coins surface has been selectively smoothed with some metal removal in a way such as to highlight the areas that have not been smoothed, or where there has been a repair or a plugged hole or a mended break and such like, or
fine surface damage to silver due to abrasive cleaning. Such less visible enhancements that materially affect a coin should be mentioned.
But, with these exceptions excluded, it's otherwise
caveat emptor. Know the seller, know your coins, and buy
per the photo and description. A well taken photo is in itself transparency. It's only what's not obvious from a photo that really needs explanation.