I think there's a difference between strengthening and tooling. 'Strengthened' may be used if only the contours are sharpened but nothing really altered. It's not fundamentally different from tooling but there is a difference in intensity. Of course often it is used as a eupehmism to pretend total honesty while at the same time trying to limit the damage.
I dislike to use of the word "strengthened" over tooled. "Strengthened" seems to imply that tooling is a positive act.
You're right, it's definitely a euphemism, chosen to make willful damage sound good!
All - Thanks for the enlightening and vibrant discussion of the subject of strengthening versus tooling.
Even for those who believe there is a difference between the two, it it simply a question of degree; strengthening being less obvious than tooling in so far as it conforms to the original iconography and
epigraphy of the design.
To the coin in question, which initiated the discussion, the
obverse is untouched as far as I can tell. The
reverse has been "exposed to the
bit". This is evident particularly in the elephants' legs, heads and trunk and the royal title and it is obvious to anyone experienced in the Seleukeia emissions but perhaps not those with little knowledge or experience of the
type.
The fact that the "strengthening" of the design is obvious (at least to the knowledgeable), means that it is sufficiently different to the original as to be discernible to the naked eye on an image and thus in my opinion lacks the integrity of the original iconography and
epigraphy. To this extent it is tooling, even if one believes in the thesis that strengthening conforms to the original design whereas tooling departs from it, in which case this coin is
tooled on the
reverse.
The result is that the distinction between strengthening and tooling, at lest in this example is erroneous. If I/you can discern the difference between a a coin touched by the
bit and one untouched then it is
tooled not strengthened by the definition proposed by some in the discussion. Theoretically under this definition, if it is not discernible then it is not
tooled, but I find it impossible to accept that the application of any
bit to a coin's surface would be indiscernible - simply apply the magnifying
glass and all becomes clear, tool mark which are not
part of the original design (or wear pattern). Therefore the distinction between strengthening and tooling is non-existent as scrutiny of the coins surface will expose the latter even if not obvious to the naked eye.
This places me in the camp of Aarmale and
Curtis Clay on this matter. Strengthening in this case has been used as a euphemism for tooling. I dare say this has been done so as to not put off the less than knowledgeable potential bidder in the
auction, while affording a defense for the vendor should the matter of tooling arise post sale- it then being easier to argue that the matter was disclosed in the lot description, albeit euphemistically!
I think areich hit the nail on the
head...
..... Of course often it is used as a eupehmism to pretend total honesty while at the same time trying to limit the damage.