Painting/patinating coins

[rayman]

Because I'm very into the bronzes, after many hours/days/weeks spent on reading the topics dealing with cleaning, it's clear to me that the "natural" and carefully cleaned coin is the best thing. Natural with no residual dirt and untouched patina being the best, but the rarest also. No wonder many ways of "improving" the appearance (deceiving the buyer?) were developed.
The owner of this site (FAC) is the best example of the "Natural and carefully cleaned" school. We probably also can agree, that crude painting/patinating should diminish the value of the coin. Lately I had to evaluate the prices of some 1,500+ bronzes, making ca. 10 price comparisons for each of them from popular sites. I've found plenty (really a lot) of high priced bronzes painted to very shiny appearance. How could it be that despite the obvious and prevailing meaning, the smoothness is so paid for?

Today's example (1,300 $ + fees)

[areich]

Repatination is of course, not as bad as tooling.
Like tooling, many people don't recognize it, many don't know what it means when a coin is described as repatinated (when does that ever happen?) or tooled and some know what it means and still bid or buy. I have no idea what goes on in the minds of those people. And I can understand it, if it's a rare coin and it's 'only' mild tooling that is sometimes called strengthening and you can't realistically get a better example of a coin you feel you need to have.

Usually repatination is not something that can simply be cleaned off but is there for a reason, to hide serious damage, rough or tooled surfaces or the fact that a coin is a cast fake. if I have a coin with darkly toned smooth metal surfaces, I personally don't care whether this toning is natural or artificially induced but I don't tolerate painted surfaces. Similarly, my problem with fake sand patina is not the fact that the sand is glued on but that in most cases there is a reason to obscure the surfaces of the coin. These coins are getting more and more prevalent and can now be found offered by supposedly reputable dealers. You can't spot every fake sand patina from a picture but some are really obvious and still get sold for high prizes.

Part of it surely comes from using words like 'surfaces', 'patination' and 'earthen deposits' and the fact that the buyers can't tell but some of these coins are pretty bad. It's very sad.

[SC]

The short answer would appear to be that many collectors are primarily concerned with the look of the coin.  I am not speaking of the type of collector that belongs to Forum where there are more who are interested in other things - original condition, rarity, etc.  But of the average market out there.

This leads many dealers or middle men to "tart up" their coins.  I agree with what areich was saying about artificial patinas often hiding something but I think they are also often just used to make it look prettier.  For example, I have many perfectly fine coins with nice smooth patinas that are simple not homogeneous in terms of colour.  A little dye job would make them more appealing I am sure and therefore likely to fetch higher prices.  (Don't quote that last line out of context!!)

As for the artificial desert patinas there appears to be two types.  One, as areich says, is in effect sand glued on.  This can obviously hide defects (as interestingly genuine sand can also do - I find sand or dirt often sticks most tenaciously to the poorer parts of the coin surface).  Anyway, this is a common technique in the antiquities trade.  For example where pins, or even entire parts of the body, of a fibula have been glued together they are very often covered with a very hard sand.  The buyer just assumes those places have not been cleaned when in fact they were attached.

But there is also a technique, apparently well known in the coin trade, of applying a desert patina by dipping, or otherwise coating, the cleaned coin in a muddy wash.  This technique adds the nice beige or red-brown highlights (really low lights as they fill the low parts leaving the highlights untouched).  There is usually no hiding of defects as this is not a thick layer of sand, just a slight wash.  It is also apparently totally reversible with a water or water and soap cleaning.  Obviously not all coins with this look have been cleaned and then had the sandy wash re-applied.  People like Salem have demonstrated how to clean a sand covered coin to eave only this look.  But I suspect that many have had this look applied.  Especially in the higher priced end of the market for biblical, Eastern provincial, etc.  I am curious about how widespread this is, as well as how it is actually done.

Shawn

[areich]

The dealer you mentioned is actually the person supplying these coins with glued on sand to all kinds of dealers and auctions along with the matching descriptions. Terms like 'earthen deposits', 'earthen green patina'. 'green surfaces, earthen deposits' etc.

A small selection:




This is a coin I'd like to see stripped of all articficial crap smeared on it. I wonder what would be left.








The list is endless. This is how blind greed ruins our hobby.

In the last auction, some of these coins were now described as 'artificially patinated', let's see how long this lasts.

[SC]

Not just one dealer.  Many do it.  Hendin refers to the widespread practice in his book.

Shawn

[SC]

Very interesting. 

Mr. Fontanille uses some interesting terms, or more accurately uses some terms in interesting ways.  He also has some rather interesting views.

He refers to the addition of the thin, light sand-coloured coating as "repatination". 

I have usually see the term repatination used for something that changes the colour of the metal - either by artificially accelerating the natural patination or toning process (such as with the various sulphur-based compounds) or by colouring it in imitation of such a process (such as by a Jax type of dye).

Instead he uses it for a method of colouring the background of the coin to bring out the details.

He notes that a thick re-patination (a controlled desert patina) can hide defects whereas a light repatination does not and therefore he believes that a light repatination is better.

As I said I would still like to know how this is done and how can it be distinguished from a similar caused by the wet cleaning technique.

I suspect that his comment that "there is no question that cleaned and repatinated coins are more desirable than coins as found" would not be one that is universally supported.  Although it does go back to the original issue of this thread - it is likely true that cleaned and repatinated coins will always fetch a premium on the wider market.

Fontanille then uses the term "painting" for a process whereby details - including letters - are added by manipulating the existing (or added) patina.  I had usually encountered the term painting to refer to colouring an entire coin with a coat of paint to create an artificial patina.

I find his discussion of smoothing a bit simplistic because he fails to distinguish between corrosion (where part of the original material is eaten away) and adhesions (material which has become attached to the coin).  He condemns all smoothing.  To me that is certainly fitting when original material is scraped away in the hope of making the surface look smoother - in other words when there is an attempt to hide or remove corrosion.  However, the removal of hard adhesions - which can look like corrosion to the untrained eye and is often described with such - is, if done properly, the same as removing soft adhesions like dirt.  Indeed some adhesion are found on top of nice natural patinas.

Personally, I find his "acceptable case of smoothing" to be very odd.  He says that filing in the scratches on the surface of a coin is all right.  It is true that the scratches in question are post-striking, and thus not part of the original design.  However, they could have occurred anytime from the day after the coin was struck to the day before the photo was taken.  I suspect, given the look of them that they are ancient.  Such scratches could have been accidental or deliberate - by such "logic" all test and bankers marks should be filled in, as should ancient graffiti.  To me those scratches are part of the coins' own history or life and it is a shame to remove them.  While it is nice that the auction house had stated that scratches had been filled in, to me this is in the same category as tooling, albeit tooling that is admitted to.  But I am sure that the opinion of others may differ.

Shawn

[Meepzorp]

Hi folks,

I am so "clueless" with this stuff (tooling, artificial repatination, artificial sand patinas, etc.). And I've been collecting ancient coins since 1998.

Is rayman implying that the coin in the first photo (with the semi-glossy black patina) has been artificially repatinated? I never would have suspected that. It would have fooled me. It's not impossible for a coin to come out of the ground with a glossy (or semi-glossy) patina, or is it?

As far as the series of photos that areich posted, I recognized only about 1/3 of them as having artificial sand patinas. The rest (about 2/3 of them) would have fooled me - including the first one (with the 2-story building on the reverse).

Just from looking at a photo, how can you tell when a coin has been artificially repatinated?

Meepzorp

[rayman]

As a proud owner of 1500+ bronzes, I know what pain in the a.. some of them could be. Looking not so bad in the hand with some pits and deposits, but if you take a picture, well... you know the results. I suppose the smoothness in sharpness of detail and uniformity in color have automatically an appeal to human eye.
But I still wonder..., following the prices of BCD Thessaly collection you could see that many coins (maybe from older collections) were "treated". Maybe the differentiation between deceiving repatination (trying to obscure tooling or repairing) and "merely" improving the surface appearance, would be not out of place. 10% of my bronzes could be dipped in hot chocolate right away.
An example (2285 USD) with a quote from BCD:
"A lovely coin with a naturally glossy black patina that brings to mind my very early years of collecting and fond memories of a dear friend, now deceased, who deserved much better luck for the last few years of his life. Decades after the acquisition of this jewel I would continue to think of it as ‘the perfect bronze’, not really being aware of the ‘added value’ a natural green patina (see the next lot) would give to a bronze coin. Today I know better but still its image will always stay with me, as vivid as it was when I first set eyes on it and held my breath."

[SC]

Yes, the problem is that some smooth glossy black patina can be original.  For some reason it often occurs under genuine desert patina.  Also, the same look you get from that fake desert re-patination can be found on coins with an original desert patina that have been wet cleaned.

There is no easy answer to sorting out the fake patina.  Experience helps.  So does dealer reputation.  I always look through other coins a dealer has listed before buying from them the first time.  I have often avoided buying a coin I thought was ok when I saw other doubtful coins in a seller's inventory.

Shawn