I note that the coin is marked as tooled in the description and the starting price is 50 euros so let's not make a big deal out of it. They are a really minor player in ancient coins auctioning, their usual lots being from scrap metal up to very low end. It is obvious this is the collection of a poor lad that left this world and the inheritors took the collection to be auctioned. So the collector has been fooled with fakes and so on by other vendors while he was collecting...
I agree with this sentiment. If a coin is described as tooled and is offered at a low price, you know exactly what you are bidding on. I've no problems with that, even if the tooling resulted in inadvertent changes - tooling by definition always causes changes to the coins design; when disclosed and priced, its no different from when a reputable dealer offers Cavinos or group lots of black cabinet reproductions.
So tooling is only unacceptable if it is offered at a high
price?
The title of the tread is
Badly Tooled Coins Here with no qualifiaction as to sale practices, or offered prices.
This coin is clearly
badly tooled, to the point of being numismatically misleading to those unfamiliar with the
type and it is misattributed.
Cheap or not does not enter the consideration of what constitutes
badly tooled. But of course for the apologists for inept and incompetent dealers this matters little, to the extent that it is equated with being ...
no different from when a reputable dealer offers Cavinos or group lots of black cabinet reproductions. That last statement is
complete bollocks when you examine the facts about this
Badly Tooled Coin, its misattribution and the circumstances under which it is offered, that have nothing to do with the starting
price that is offered. And since when are fully attributed Cavinos or balck cabinet
fakes the same as misattributed
tooled coins? Completely different things as far as I am concerned, and I suggest most would agree that there are no similarities between a reproduction, or balck cabinet fake and a
badly tooled coin.
And a starting
price is not an estimate and certainly not a
price realized. Quite the opposite more often than not. In fact it is usual for the less than scrupulous to post a low starting
price with no estimate as a hook to the suckers. But my issue was not with this approach, it never entered the discussion till someone blew this smoke, irrelevant to the consideration, over the
thread titled
Badly Tooled Coins Here.
Rather as I said:
Numismatic Vandalism: For sale in an upcoming auction from a high profile Spanish auction house, this criminal piece of the toolers art is noteworthy for its attempt to re-write the numismatic record......
&
In cases like this I wonder where tooling ends and forgery begins.
Certainly its a blurred line. Call it what we will, tooling or forgery, the potentially adverse consequence of this sort of activity on the understanding and interpretation of the numismatic record is profound.
So your point is what? That there are acceptable
Badly Tooled Coins if they are offered at a
cheap price, even if misattributed and bearing no comment on the extent of misleading reworking/addition of erroneous
mint controls etc.? Sure no expert will be deceived, but then no expert will be interested in the crap.... the same can be said of any and every
tooled coin! If thats your benchmark then all
tooled coins are acceptable and pose no risk (to experts).
Your logic seems flawed, to say the least!
It is not experts that buy this sort of material and for such people it is far from clear-cut that .....
If a coin is described as tooled and is offered at a low price, you know exactly what you are bidding on. In this specific case the inexpert bidder might think he
had found a
bargain unrecorded Diodotid coin
type! Onto that hook you sucker!
But remember, I made no big deal of these aspects, in simply posting a
Badly Tooled Coin Here and explaing why it was badly
tooled and misattributed. The matter of
price never came into this consideration in my original post, that smoke was blown over the subject by the apologist for an inept at best, misleading at worst, dealer who remained completely anonymous in my post.