This is a great
thread, exemplifying as it does many of the positives of ancient
numismatics in the age of the Internet and a few negatives too, and illuminating some gray areas. First, Kudos to Pul for
his detective
work.
Good job. And kudos to HJB for immediately withdrawing the coin. Finally, kudos to Joe for hosting
FORVM and to others like him who do similar efforts.
1. This without question is tooling. It involved the moving of metal, the alteration of the essence of the coin. It went far beyond cleaning, which is universally accepted, and repatinating, which is accepted by most. Metal was removed on the
obverse at the right eye, and metal was added to the nose. As far as I can tell, that's all that was done, but it totally changed the coin. I don't see a difference between moving metal to make details appear less worn and moving metal to hide defects caused by the minting process or circulation (gouges and scratches).
2. Tooling of this kind is nearly universally condemned in
numismatics, though there are those who make their living at this, coin doctors who advertise in coin magazines. And it is in fact considered conservation or restoration, and thus acceptable, in other areas. It's always interesting examining where you draw the line. With
numismatics, you want to preserve how the coin emerged from the
mint and what effects circulation
had on it. That's
part of its
history, the truth behind it. In other areas the line is drawn differently to how the piece of artwork likely looked when it was created. And as has been pointed out here, there are differing views in ancient
numismatics about what's acceptable, what's acceptable with disclosure, and what's not acceptable.
3. I suspect that no investigation of this matter will take place, no article will appear in the press, nothing will happen publicly at least beyond what we share online. I believe the attitude of the powers that be is that it's in the interests of ancient
numismatics to keep matters like this relatively quiet. I suspect HJB will share the name of the seller of this
tooled item with other major dealers, and that the person behind this will have a more difficult time
selling his tooled coins to other major dealers. But he'll
still find buyers -- smaller dealers and perhaps to collectors directly through
eBay. That same thing happens with those that are caught trying to pass off
counterfeits as authentic even when it's apparent that it's done knowingly. Because nothing is published, these deceptions eventually find a way into the market and into
collections.
4. I don't believe it's
fair to expect dealers to scour
CoinArchives.com, other online databases, and printed
collections to
vet every coin they sell. That's would add far more time to every coin transaction, more time than probably exists in the day. Yes, if a coin is questionable. But for most coins, dealers rely on their experience as well as reports from others like the one right here and from people who notice
forgeries and alterations mistakenly being offered as authentic in printed
auction catalogs. It's not a perfect system.
I think the solution, not a panacea, is more publication, openness, knowledge, education.
