Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example  (Read 5456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12153
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2013, 10:21:20 am »
I just did a little research on laser engraving and I do believe tooling with a laser is possible. From what I have read, it seems laser engraving would reduce the weight. I hope those who know more about laser engraving can educate us on how this could be possible (without training new toolers, of course).   
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Lloyd Taylor

  • Guest
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2013, 10:03:24 pm »
Quote from: carthago on January 22, 2013, 08:41:24 am
One thing that I failed to mention is that both of the coins had apparently identical weight according to the auction descriptions.  I didn't weight mine, but the auction it came out of said it was 3.68g and the suspected original was 3.69g.  Mine was sold in 2009 and the original (if it is indeed the same coin) was sold at auction in 2005.  

If tooled by laser, magic, or the Dark Side Force in a way that it removed material, I wonder if the weight would change appreciably?  Alternatively, having it virtually the same weight in my mind adds further evidence supporting that it is the same coin.  Wouldn't it be very difficult to replicate the weight in a cast?

Btw, Lloyd, thank you very much for your education explanation on lost wax casting!  Very much appreciated.  I did not know how it is done.  

In looking at the weights of the two(?) coins the difference is within the accuracy of low cost electronic scales which at typically read plus/minu 0.015 gm (despite claims to the contary). Thus the same coin weighed on different scales could be expected to vary in measured weight by up to 0.03 gms.

Tooling of the coin (by any means) would remove metal and thus lower weight, but this is likely to be within the error bar attached to the measurement on different scales.

A metal cast with shrink volumetrically on cooling around 0.5% - 1% for pure silver if my recall is correct, more for other alloys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_%28casting%29 ) so all other things being equal (which of course they are not) the volume shrinkage will translate into a weight reduction compared to the master which would be measurable, but on a 3.69 g coin the weight reduction in the cast would be of the order of 0.03-0.05 gm so noticable if weighed on the same scales, but more difficult to detect if the coins are weighed on different scales (other than high precision scientifc scales).  

A better test for the cast volumetric shrinkage is the actual dimensional measurement of the coin, rather than weight. The volumentric shrinkage is readily measured with a vernier caliper, but of course one has to have the two coins, master and cast side by side to to the comparitve dimensional measurements.

So my hunch is that the weight difference you see recorded is of uncertain significance, unless you can confirm that the weights were recorded on either the same scales at the same time, or using scientific precision scales rather than the low cost digitial scales used my most people/dealers.

Offline vitellivs

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2013, 10:38:29 am »
 A few words about this case:
 
 - Coin has been tooled
 - No laser, no magic stick, no expensive technology, no fantasy
 - Classic tooling and final improvement

 I tried to draw attention to such coins in post:     https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=80284.0    
 Case of Sestertius is little different, because fake patina and fake dirt hide "massacre", but point is similar...
 Point is: Style is wrong - it is not necessary microscope to say this coin is OK, and this is not...

 Also, I don't like expressions: poor Bulgarian... poor this or poor that - this is offensively!
 How is possible: Poor Bulgarian tooled coin and rich Auction house bought it and sold it to more richer collector from the richest country.

Offline areich

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 8706
    • Ancient Greek and Roman Coins, featuring BMC online and other books
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2013, 11:30:59 am »
What kind of tooling and improvement did they use?
Andreas Reich

Offline vitellivs

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2013, 03:08:44 pm »

 People who tool coins use simple classic tools - different scalpels, chisels, awls etc... shape of tools is different, and different people use different tools; it is important for tool to be sharp and precise; cuts made by such tools are rough, conspicuous, "hard" and visible... it is necessary to improve them, to make them soft, more natural and to make them "refined"...
 That is possible with silver and gold especially, so with metals which are "workable". Bronze is not workable metal, it is possible to tool it, but it is hard to improve it; that is reason for fake patina, fake dirt - fake coating of something which will cover tooled surface and make it less recognizable...

Offline areich

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 8706
    • Ancient Greek and Roman Coins, featuring BMC online and other books
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2013, 03:28:41 pm »
I have only ever seen very badly tooled silver. I have never seen tooled silver that was well done (unless of course, I couldn't recognize it).
Andreas Reich

Offline carthago

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Nervos belli, pecuniam
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2013, 10:45:49 pm »
This is certainly an interesting conversation.  The coin is clearly controversial! 

I still stick with the story I was told by 2 very experienced ancient numismatists.  One of them, in fact, sold me this coin but took it back.   I'm convinced it's true.


Offline carthago

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Nervos belli, pecuniam
Re: Dangerous Laser Tooling Example
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2013, 10:55:26 am »
Modified 2-26-13 to include new picture location.

Quote from: carthago on January 20, 2013, 08:33:03 pm
A few months ago, I posted a request for opinions on a Denarius of Marc Antony that I owned.  The topic regarded another coin that I found in a prior auction that looked just like mine, except in a much more worn state.  The topic can be found here:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=84483.0

Fast forward several weeks.  I've since taken my coin to 2 major ancient coins shows and discussed it with several highly qualified dealers.  Suffice to say I'm pretty sure it is tooled and I'll explain why, as it was explained to me.  First off, though, credit should be given to Barry Murphy who said it was tooled in the original post above, but didn't really explain how so I'll do it as I understand it.

In short, there was apparently a Bulgarian (what's with those enterprising Bulgarian's?) a few years back that was purchasing worn, reasonably high value coins and tooling them with a laser.  They are very dangerous and the way to tell is to find the prior coin (like I did) and/or find a die match and look for the differences.   Under magnification, I'll admit I don't have a ton of experiencing looking at these but there is no metal movement that you would expect with typical tooling.  To me, it looks quite normal.  Again, I'm not the expert and hopefully don't have any others in my collection to compare.

I'm putting up 4 photos: tooled, original, what I believe is a die match, and about a 50-60x magnification view of the tooled coin in area that was tooled.  If you compare the tooled coin to the die match, it is clearly off in hair details.  It almost doesn't seem like a die match, however, if you compare the original to the die match, they are right on and if you compare the original to the tooled it is right on. 

Anyway, I share this with the community to know this stuff exists.  It's very dangerous.

The tooled coin:



The original coin:



Magnified view of tooled area



The candidate die match






 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity