It is common today to re-patinate
ancient coins, using a variety of methods. Some are reversible, some not. They all have the same goal: to enhance the esthetic appeal of the coin by evening out unwanted colour differences and often also to give a smoother surface. Sometimes substances are
applied to enhance the relief and mimic natural patination.
Every dealer and collector will have a personal view on this, ranging from full acceptance to full rejection. That is the way it should be. But when an artificial
patina is
applied specifically to hide
poor preservation, we – imho - approach the
area of criminal behavior.
Imagine that a poorly preserved coin is sold for USD 1,500. The buyer then applies a thick artificial
patina to hide the corroded surface and made to mimic sandy
patina (
aka Syrian
patina). Imagine that the artificial
patina is made of sandy
patina scraped off from genuine coins and then made into a glue which is painted on the corroded coin. Imagine that the
price is now raised from USD 1,500 to USD 5,900.
Do collectors
still want the coin with the
fake patina if they know what the coin really looks like?
The coin posted here is now for sale. The upper photos are from the Heritage
auction 21-22 Jan this year. The lower photos show the same coin as it is being offered now by a well-known seller. The seller does state “earthen
patina applied”, which is true. The
quality is given as “
Choice VF” which is in any case very subjective.
My paper on the
SPES PVBLIC coins was published early this year*, before this particular example surfaced, so it is not in the
catalogue. I would have added a paragraph on it, warning potential buyers from acquiring it.
These are just my views, other may think differently.
* a 20-page extract (of 160 pages) is available on academia.edu:
https://independent.academia.edu/LarsRamskold