Panormos and the problem of tooling

[Molinari]

I share an interesting thread about my coin from lamoneta:

http://www.lamoneta.it/topic/124284-calciati-i-272-11-forgery/?p=1413770

One would think a coin that has appeared in two major works would be safe, but sadly that's not the case.  At the very least it has been seriously strengthened and totally repatinated (which is rather obvious), however, the grain ear above the man-faced bull might be totally made up!  Adding to the problem is that Bucetti described this exact coin as having SYS above the man-faced bull

I think it is possible for there to have been a grain on the original coin, since we see varieties with nothing above the MFB and with Sys above the MFB, so this could just be a new variety (still tooled).

Here is Nico's image highlighting the problem areas!  

[Taras]

Here is the plate coin from Calciati.

Comparing the area above the MFB I think it's clear the misunderstanding of the tooler, who "engraved" directly on the flan the grain, where traces of the punic legend were still visible. I could be wrong of course and the coin published by Hoover could be a new variant.
But the obvious signs of hard tooling and smoothing all over the both sides of the coin (plus the green fake patina) make me very suspicious.

Bye
Nico

[Molinari]

Hmmm....they could be totally different dies, too.  Even if the tooler misunderstood the legend for grain ear, the style of the MFB looks completely different.

Maybe I should strip the tooled coin of its fake patina to know for sure where the tooling lines are?  What is the weight of the Calciati piece and did he list any others?  

Nick

EDIT: It should also be mentioned that neither Hoover nor Bucetti describe what is above the MFB as a grain ear.  That is just my interpretation.  So perhaps they both recognized it as a tooler's mistake and so left it out of the description!  It could just be an encrustation that the tooler separated from the MFB with a line but left the rest remaining above (in fact, I'm starting to think that's exactly what it is!)..

[Taras]

He listed only that specimen, weight 1,95g

[Molinari]

He listed only that specimen, weight 1,95g

Thanks buddy.  So they are within weight range to be the same series and dies.

[Taras]

He listed only that specimen, weight 1,95g

Thanks buddy.  So they are within weight range to be the same series and dies.

I think so, but I also think that the heavy tooling and smoothing makes it very hard to make any die comparison.

[Molinari]

I'd like to know if the Forvm community thinks this is a fair way of describing the coin at issue:

Obv: Forepart of Man-headed bull facing left, possibly ear of corn above or simply an encrustation divided from the man-faced bull by the tooler, in which case SYS should be above.  It could also be a die break.  Rev: Horse trotting right, ear of corn above, line below.  Calciati I, 272, no. 11. Hoover HGC 2, 1062 (this coin); Giuseppe Bucetti "Monete, Storia e topografia della Sicilia Greca," p. 344 (this coin). Definite tooling around the major devices on both the obverse and reverse.  With only one other poorly preserved example known (the Calciati coin) it is difficult to determine the extent of the tooling on the man-faced bull himself.  Fake patina.

Thanks,

Nick

[Carausius]

I think that's a fair description.

[Molinari]

Thanks, Mike.  I'm going to examine it under a microscope this summer to see if I can determine the exact extent of the tooling.  I'm not worried about resale, but we'd like to potentially use it as a plate coin if I can determine it isn't that bad.

Thanks again,

Nick

[Arados]

Your description seems fine to me Nick but there is just one very minor detail i noticed, should there be a comma before the word or ? (above(?), or ). Woudn´t it look better read as a full sentence ?

(Forepart of Man-headed bull facing left, possibly ear of corn above or simply an encrustation divided from the man-faced bull by the tooler)

Sorry for nit-picking. 

Martin

[Molinari]

Yes, I like your version better, thanks!

[Meepzorp]

Hi Nick,

I think that is a fair and excellent description.

I see the obvious tooling on the obverse (bull's face, hair, etc.). But I don't see it on the reverse.

I also don't see how it is "obviously a fake patina". The only thing that looks a little suspicious to me is the brown "halo" around the horse (about 1-2 mm). And then the green patina starts after that halo.

But I am not good at spotting fakes anyway.

Meepzorp

[Molinari]

I see the obvious tooling on the obverse (bull's face, hair, etc.). But I don't see it on the reverse.

I also don't see how it is "obviously a fake patina". The only thing that looks a little suspicious to me is the brown "halo" around the horse (about 1-2 mm). And then the green patina starts after that halo.

That's interesting, because I think the bull himself (hair and beard) might not be tooled, just the field around him. Why do you think it is obvious if we don't know what this type is supposed to look like?

The patina matches the same patina on a number of Sicilian bronzes from the same sale, all from different areas of Sicily but all with the same patina.  Several experts have confirmed the patina is fake, and in hand or sitting next to authentic patinas it stands out as "off".  This was an earlier fake patina technique that has been replaced by a newer one, in which the fakers now add an element of sandy patination.  Again, it is obvious because all of these coins from many different areas have the exact same patina!  In isolation it can fool someone, but once you know how to spot it it is quite obvious.

Nick

[Taras]

I'd like to know if the Forvm community thinks this is a fair way of describing the coin at issue:

Obv: Forepart of Man-headed bull facing left, ear of corn above(?), or simply an encrustation divided from the man-faced bull by the tooler, in which case SYS should be above. Rev: Horse trotting right, ear of corn above, line below.  Calciati I, 272, no. 11. Hoover HGC 2, 1062 (this coin); Giuseppe Bucetti "Monete, Storia e topografia della Sicilia Greca," p. 344 (this coin). Definite tooling around the major devices on both the obverse and reverse.  With only one other poorly preserved example known (the Calciati coin) it is difficult to determine the extent of the tooling on the man-faced bull himself.  Fake patina.

Thanks,

Nick

Yes I think this is the right way we should run when we publish problematic specimens.
Well put nick! 
I fully agree with you, the absolute no-no is to publish tooled coins without describing them as tooled. If we have no alternatives this could be the right smart way to avoid blank listings. However I still think that there is a third even smartest way... a drawing taken from Calciati IMHO is better than a pic of a tooled specimen.

About the problems of this coin, beyond the fake green patina, I think even the MFB and the horse are probably tooled, and then smoothed to delete the traces. But it's only an hypothesis, to be more accurate I should see the coin in hands, looking at the levels of rising of plans. However I'm still convinced the grain above the mfb is totally tooled from the traces of the inscription.
Bye
Nico

[Molinari]

I'm almost certain that the tooler didn't even intend a grain and that's just what I projected onto it.  I think it was just an encrustation he separated from the MFB.  I'll have to study the coin very closely under magnification to determine the extent of the tooling, but such an analysis will have to wait until the summer.

Nick

[Meepzorp]

That's interesting, because I think the bull himself (hair and beard) might not be tooled, just the field around him. Why do you think it is obvious if we don't know what this type is supposed to look like?

Nick

Hi Nick,

The face and hair on the MFB just look a little "off" to me. It doesn't look right.

And Taras feels that way too.

Meepzorp

[Meepzorp]

The patina matches the same patina on a number of Sicilian bronzes from the same sale, all from different areas of Sicily but all with the same patina.  Several experts have confirmed the patina is fake, and in hand or sitting next to authentic patinas it stands out as "off".  This was an earlier fake patina technique that has been replaced by a newer one, in which the fakers now add an element of sandy patination.  Again, it is obvious because all of these coins from many different areas have the exact same patina!  In isolation it can fool someone, but once you know how to spot it it is quite obvious.

Nick

Hi Nick,

You were fortunate to see it in that context. And the coins weren't broken up.

Meepzorp

[Molinari]

Here is the coin as it appeared in 2006.  As you can see, it underwent some further work before I bought it c. 2008.  The question is, were the devices "tooled" or the fields simply "smoothed"?

Perhaps I should send it to an expert in the US to examine in hand?

[Molinari]

And a comparison shot.  If this is the extent of the tooling then I think it is fine.

EDIT:  By "fine" I mean we can understand what the coin looked like and the devices themselves have not been altered to represent something that wasn't there.  Naturally, I'd prefer for the tooler not to have touched it!

[Arados]

Evidence of tooling can be seen clearly between the horses rear end and tail, the tail is much more refined in recent image. Also there has been clear minipulation of the the neckline.

[Molinari]

Evidence of tooling can be seen clearly between the horses rear end and tail, the tail is much more refined in recent image. Also there has been clear minipulation of the the neckline.

Do you think the original photo is tooled?

[Meepzorp]

Hi Nick,

On the obverse, I noticed 2 things that are different.

First, the bull's ear is moved and/or bent at a different angle. In the original (2006) photo, the ear is angled almost horizontally. In the 2008 photo, the ear is angled more upward.

Second, the bull's leg is angled differently too. In the 2008 photo, it is bent more horizontally. The angle between the hoof and thigh is smaller.

Also, the patina is different. In the 2006 photo, it is a lighter shade of green. In the 2008 photo, it is darker. And the horse in particular has a "brown halo" around its entire body, as I mentioned above.

Meepzorp

[Molinari]

Thanks Meepzorp.  I know the second picture shows a tooled coin. The essential question is, is the 2006 coin tooled?  If not tooled, I can use that picture for the book.

[Arados]

Evidence of tooling can be seen clearly between the horses rear end and tail, the tail is much more refined in recent image. Also there has been clear minipulation of the the neckline.

Do you think the original photo is tooled?

Very difficult to say from the 2006 images, tho there is one area bottom right behind the leg of Man-Face Bull that appears to be tooled. See image

I would tentatively say yes the 2006 images show signs of tooling.
 

[Molinari]

Thanks Arados.  It certainly isn't the typical Lanz tooled coin.