Author Topic: Licinius aureus successful repair job (Read 3264 times)

siscia_avg · « **on:** October 11, 2018, 09:59:01 am »

Auction from 2014

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-150099

Current auction

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-150098

Although I hate even slightest hint of tooling or improving ancient coins, I must admit that this is skillful repair job.

best,

siscia_avg

PS - I am avoiding any names in order to stay in line with Forum rules, both coins are very easy to find online.
This is only coin that I could find in online resources with this celator's error. The eagle is very close to leg and there is no room for expected object in beak (wreath or scepter).

mix_val · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2018, 12:25:00 pm »

Remarkable! A reason to require a coin's provenance before purchasing an expensive coin.
I'd like to see an elemental surface analysis of the improved coin to see if the doctored surface can be revealed.

JBF · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2018, 08:18:03 pm »

deceptive. I am not sure I like the implications. This coin initially looked like it fell in a garbage disposal. But, I wonder if someday, all the coins will be FDC, and it will be hard to find one with "honest wear."

Robert K · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2018, 12:51:27 am »

Was it a full-time job for four years (2014-2018) to perform the "repairs?"

Dominic T · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2018, 06:50:17 am »

Can someone please enlight me ? I don’t know anything about gold. How is it possible to transform a coin that much

DT

okidoki · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2018, 06:54:03 am »

interesting topic

Vincent · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2018, 05:38:37 pm »

Could it be a different identical coin..die match? Maybe a hoard was uncovered...how do we know it was doctored?

*Alex · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2018, 06:03:44 pm »

Quote from: Vincent on October 12, 2018, 05:38:37 pm

Could it be a different identical coin..die match? Maybe a hoard was uncovered...how do we know it was doctored?

The flan shapes are identical which indicates to me that they are the same coin. Furthermore the still visible "nick" in exactly the same place above Licinius' eyebrow on both coins is a clincher for me.

Alex.

SC · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2018, 06:40:13 pm »

They are definitely the same coin. Not all flaws could be "repaired". Take a look at the hair, including the beard, of the "repaired" coin and you will see that traces of damage can still be seen. The best example is the large V-shaped dent at approximately the jaw mandible hinge area.

Anyone know what the story is? Very odd damage in the first place. Doesn't really look like natural damage to me. Almost like vandalism, someone tapping at it with a small punch or dull pin..... Done in antiquity or modern?

Not really the type of "improvement" I like, though perhaps I would view repairing modern vandalism damage different from just trying to "improve" an ancient coin.

SC

mix_val · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2018, 11:26:18 am »

Quote from: Vincent on October 12, 2018, 05:38:37 pm

Could it be a different identical coin..die match? Maybe a hoard was uncovered...how do we know it was doctored?

Look at solidi on wildwinds and you will be hard pressed to find two that are perfectly circular. Most have significant deviations from circularity like the example discussed above. Now think what it would take to strike two flans so that the die impressions are identical with respect to deviations from circular flan shape. This by workers (probably slaves) striking thousands of coins in a day. Who would have time for that? Now consider the matching damaged areas of one coin to the imperfections of the repaired coin (as discussed above). There is no question in my mind.

Vincent · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2018, 11:54:05 pm »

Thanks guys..I see now...said the blind man....how could the seller also be so blind?

*Alex · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2018, 07:27:20 am »

Quote from: otlichnik on October 12, 2018, 06:40:13 pm

Anyone know what the story is? Very odd damage in the first place. Doesn't really look like natural damage to me. Almost like vandalism, someone tapping at it with a small punch or dull pin..... Done in antiquity or modern?

SC

I wondered if the coin might have been sandwiched between two rough stone surfaces as in a foundation stone deposit. But that is, of course, just a wild guess with nothing to base it on except the workings of my own mind.

Alex

SC · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2018, 09:19:52 am »

I don't think so. If you look carefully at the photo of the damaged version you can see that there are no real scratches - hence no lateral movement. Just the pits. If you look at all the pits you can see that many involve impacts hard enough to move some of the metal - it is pushed up in the form of ridges or waves. However, if you look carefully at those ridges or waves you can see that they are not all on the same side. It is like looking at a photograph of many trees but finding that the shadows are all in different directions. Anyway, this seems to indicate that they force behind the impacts that created those pits was not all coming from one direction like you would expect if it was all the result of one blow or impact. Seems to be many impacts from different angles. Mystery to me.

SC

Robert_Brenchley · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2018, 04:54:50 pm »

I've picked coins up in the road that looked like that.

suarez · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2018, 02:52:26 am »

That is an amazing repair. Whatever your position on altering of ancient artifacts you have to admit the guy who did this deserves a standing ovation.

Rasiel

Flav V · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2018, 01:53:35 pm »

Very nice find Siscia Avg

I gone see and look at what i found:

1rst coin https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=463386 LHS numismatik sold in 2008.
2nd clin https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=675002 Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung sold in 2009

*Alex · « **Reply #16 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:56:23 am »

I am not sure that anything has been done to this coin. I think that the differences between the two images are purely due to the photography. The small pits and scratches evident in the upper picture are still faintly visible to me in the lower picture. The low quality image doesn't help.

Alex.

andi89 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 01, 2018, 12:13:38 pm »

The scratch on the reverse maybe, but in order to think that the hole on the cheek and the ones on the neck can almost completly disappear just by photography, you must have a lot of faith. In my opinion there was clearly some manipulation done; the pictures could for sure be better in order to say more.

Flav V · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2018, 05:11:34 pm »

I totaly agree with Andy89

siscia_avg · « **Reply #19 on:** November 04, 2018, 01:25:43 pm »

Nice catch, Flav V.

"Cosmetic surgery" on holes and scratches is something I could almost live by, provided it's mentioned in auction description.

But reconstructive work on removing the die break from Iupiter's forehead and reconstruction of lettering (look at X and SER) is really too much not too call it tooling.

Flav V · « **Reply #20 on:** November 05, 2018, 03:12:09 pm »

I noticed the work on X and SER ... even then "grenetis" (french word, i dont know how to traduct) i mean the little dots all around the legend on the obverse, seems "erased" a few on the 2nd photo. Something i explain with photo quality... but i ask myself... is it the same coin? All of you here know what i mean. I dont want to say more...

News:

Author Topic: Licinius aureus successful repair job (Read 3264 times)