Badly Tooled Coins Here

[areich]

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.

[curtislclay]

Andrew,

I agree with Andreas: the two words are not equivalent.

"Tooling" includes completely inventing and adding letters and details that were never there.

"Strengthening" means removing metal from around genuine details of the type, in order to make them sharper and clearer.

"Strengthening" restricts itself to genuine details of the type; "tooling" does not.

[benito]

Andrew,

I agree with Andreas: the two words are not equivalent.

"Tooling" includes completely inventing and adding letters and details that were never there.

"Strengthening" means removing metal from around genuine details of the type, in order to make them sharper and clearer.

"Strengthening" restricts itself to genuine details of the type; "tooling" does not.

Beg to disagree. In your second acception strengthening is the same as tooling. Question of semantics. The word tooling has become a bad word in numismatics.
Something like calling a prostitute an hetaera.

[Andrew McCabe]

Andrew,

I agree with Andreas: the two words are not equivalent.

"Tooling" includes completely inventing and adding letters and details that were never there.

"Strengthening" means removing metal from around genuine details of the type, in order to make them sharper and clearer.

"Strengthening" restricts itself to genuine details of the type; "tooling" does not.

Beg to disagree. In your second acception strengthening is the same as tooling. Question of semantics. The word tooling has become a bad word in numismatics.
Something like calling a prostitute an hetaera.

It's all semantics. After all, hardly anyone would deliberately tool a coin so as NOT to look like its original type, and if they did do that, then it is not tooling but forgery. All ordinary tooling (leaving aside forgery) has as its aim making "genuine" aspects of the design appear clear and sharp. That they often fail, and as a result change the design, is almost always by accident. If deliberate, then it is sheer forgery.

But perhaps BECAUSE of this association with forgery, I think the better classes of tooling can be called "strengthening" without embarrassment.

By Andrea's definition the below (top) counts as tooled


244/3  #0864-47 C.ABVRI GEM_altered Hercules Prow Quadrans forgery of MA type

I regard it as a forgery plain and simple (the MA has been carved out; the original type was C.ABVRI GEM, an MA quadrans is a very rare type so this was an attempt to convert a common coin into a rare coin). So when someone, in a misguided attempt to make a coin better, carefully sharpens up some existing design details, without changing the design at all, perhaps we should call it strengthened. A slightly-improved coin does not deserve to be in the same bucket as a outright forgery.

But, once again, these are all semantics. The important thing is to understand what has happened to the coin and to be able to describe the sad event. Just having this discussion helps people to understand that there are a range of interventions all in the bucket called "tooling". Some worse than others.

[curtislclay]

Andrew,

Yes, "all semantics", but isn't it still important to preserve clear distinctions in the meanings of words?

I continue to maintain that, for example, a coin with the emperor's hair and beard reengraved on the obverse, and the deity's clothing on the reverse, and letters of the legend tooled in that were originally entirely missing, is correctly described as "tooled", but not as either "strengthened" or "a forgery".

[Andrew McCabe]

Andrew,

Yes, "all semantics", but isn't it still important to preserve clear distinctions in the meanings of words?

I continue to maintain that, for example, a coin with the emperor's hair and beard reengraved on the obverse, and the deity's clothing on the reverse, and letters of the legend tooled in that were originally entirely missing, is correctly described as "tooled", but not as either "strengthened" or "a forgery".

Curtis

I totally agree on the need  to have clear definitions, and if possible to distinguish between different words that apply to different levels of intervention.

Forgery. Tooled. Strengthened. Smoothed. Polished. Details improved. Details enhanced with a tool. Over-cleaned. Sharpened. Heavily cleaned. Whatever.

Who is to be the guardian of these definitions?

I equate tooled=strengthened and call any deliberate change to a design as forgery but my view on these words is as subjective as the next. Others distinguish between the words. Sometimes smoothed just means smoothed, and sometimes it means also with some tooling or strengthening (as you will) at the edges". Sometimes, regardless of definitions, a seller may use "smoothed" to mean heavily tooled and then wash his hands by claiming he pointed out the intervention. It's all so confusing.

Andrew

[Andrew McCabe]

I agree the words do matter but unfortunately I don't know whose dictionary to consult. Whatever about the words used, I attempted to describe the different degrees of intervention in a post yesterday:

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=53363.msg514786#msg514786

and how these interventions affect

(a) value from the perspective of a well-informed expert
(b) academic numismatic value
(c) price

Please excuse me if you prefer to use different words than in my post. That's perfectly ok (until definitions are defined) so long as we understand the negative impact that interventions have on value. Given that neither academics nor expert collectors are the purchasers of most of these monstrosities the absurdly high "price" they sell for often has nothing to do with their value.

[Aarmale]

I dislike to use of the word "strengthened" over tooled.  "Strengthened" seems to imply that tooling is a positive act.

[curtislclay]

You're right, it's definitely a euphemism, chosen to make willful damage sound good!

[Lloyd]

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.

[Lloyd]

I totally agree on the need  to have clear definitions, and if possible to distinguish between different words that apply to different levels of intervention.

Forgery. Tooled. Strengthened. Smoothed. Polished. Details improved. Details enhanced with a tool. Over-cleaned. Sharpened. Heavily cleaned. Whatever.

Who is to be the guardian of these definitions?

I equate tooled=strengthened and call any deliberate change to a design as forgery but my view on these words is as subjective as the next. Others distinguish between the words. Sometimes smoothed just means smoothed, and sometimes it means also with some tooling or strengthening (as you will) at the edges". Sometimes, regardless of definitions, a seller may use "smoothed" to mean heavily tooled and then wash his hands by claiming he pointed out the intervention. It's all so confusing.

Unfortunately there appears to be no custodian of definitions/standards in the numismatic market, nor any authority charged with the responsibility to monitoring reasonable compliance with standards. The general consumer protection law in any jurisdiction is non-specific with respect to the trade in to coins and revolves around general concepts and definitions of fair trading and non-deceptive conduct and marketing.

Tooled, smoothed, polished and truly fake coins are a fact of life in the numismatic market.  Some might even argue that the frequency of occurrence of some of these is increasing and from my perspective such a case can be made for tooled coins. Various numismatic dealers association exist, usually with a voluntary code of conduct required of members. Therefore the case can be made that it is time for the various numismatic dealers associations to bang a few heads and develop some standard definitions of things like tooling and/or strengthening with acceptance of these definitions and standards built into the voluntary code of conduct.

We have generally accepted definitions of coin grade (all be they sometimes stretched beyond the bounds of credibility by some vendors) so why not tooling. I agree that tooling comes in varying degrees, from the light touch on detail to totally transforming metallic wastage.  So why not a grade system; lightly tooled - tooled - heavily tooled - tooled fantasy with appropriate descriptive qualifiers specific to the coin in question?  Remove the ambiguity of terms such as strengthening by defining such in the terminology and grading of tooling. Similarly for the various degrees of smoothing and even polishing, distinguishing one from another and defining the boundaries between smoothing and tooling.

At the present it seems to me that the numismatic market operates much as the used car market did thirty years ago.  Near new, one owner with repaired light panel damage went the description. A glance along the side of the vehicle showed ill fitting panels and waves of metal on every surface, the  odometer showed only 50k while the fabric of the seats and carpets were worn through and the log book shows it was serviced in twenty different locations - Caveat Emptor.  But this is no longer the case in most western jurisdictions where standards have been defined and embodied in consumer law.  Unfortunately, a voluntary code was insufficient for the used car dealers and the heavy hand of the law came to be applied.

Better, I suggest that the numismatic trade dealers associations moves in advance of the need for such!

[Andrew McCabe]

This certified, slabbed Pompey, as VF-20, is also tooled. I can certify that. Anyone who tries to buy it deserves to be certified. Who are National Numismatic Certification anyways?

Great seller photo. But who needs a photo of the coin when you have a clearer photo of the NNC certification.

[Joe Sermarini]

Who are National Numismatic Certification anyways?

Not a legitimate certification company. 

[TRPOT]

even the bar code looks phony

[benito]

Not using the bad words.
Strenghtened/enhanced. Filled. Make-up ?
Yes imho.

[benito]

BUMP
No other opinions ?

[curtislclay]

Slight tooling possible on the r. arm and the skirt of the figure on rev., in my opinion.

[benito]

IMO quite heavy enhancing on obverse and general beauty parlor treatment. People for dinner, so tomorrow I will show what IMO is the before and after of
one of the the best tooling jobs  I have ever seen.

[benito]

Still under the effects of too much liquor , too many bragging  collectors together (50 $ for a aVF Caligula and sisters) and some angry wifes but here is the announced before and after the beauty parlor + some useful implements. ( Click to enlarge.)

[curtislclay]

When you already know the answer to a question, why pose it to the board?

[slokind]

Well, to me the 'answer' is less whether or not the work on it amounts to 'tooling' but: In what respects does the 'conservator' give himself/herself away? 
So I'd say that the comparison is highly instructive for all of us who have handled fewer coins than Curtis (to name one) has.
I was about to post a reply asserting that the 'conservator' betrayed his ignorance of the articulation of the right leg, i.e., the Standbein.  Enough of the original metal shows on the BW photo of the knee and calf to show where he erred.  One detail is enough; I won't bore you all with more.
Pat L.

[Molinari]

This one belongs here.  At least it is labeled as such.

Sicily, Bronze,The Sileraioi, c. 357-336 a.C., AE, (g 7,50, mm 20, h 11). SI?EPAION, forepart of man-faced bull r.; around linear border, Rv. SI?, warrior advancing r., wearing helmet, holding spear and shield. CNS III, n. 3; SNG ANS -.Rare. Dark patina. Tooled. About extremely fine.

[acv]

When you already know the answer to a question, why pose it to the board?

I think the point was that no one can really tell from an image whether a tool is definitely tooled or not.  Maybe he works for NGC?

[Joe Sermarini]

When you already know the answer to a question, why pose it to the board?

I think the point was that no one can really tell from an image whether a tool is definitely tooled or not.  Maybe he works for NGC?

Sometimes you can tell from an image, sometimes you cannot.  Sometimes, but not often, it is very difficult to tell, even with the coin in hand.

[Taras]

I'm very sad today.
Unfortunately, after the extermination of Sicilian bronzes, a famous seller we already know, has began his work of tooling destruction on Bruttium and Calabria bronzes.


Rhegion...





...and Brundisium