AussieCollector

I disagree with you, but cannot be bothered arguing anymore. It matters little anyway. See it as you wish to, and I will do the same. Edit: Actually, I have decided to expand on my thinking on this so you can better understand my position. Let's step this through. Imagine you have one unintentional scratch on a coin. Is it still a genuine coin? Yes, of course. But what if that exact same scratch is intentional? Is it still genuine? Yes, but we call it graffiti. Now, what if there are hundreds of unintentional scratches? Is the coin still genuine? Yes, but we'd give it an F grade or worse. What if those exact same hundreds of scratches are intentional? Does that make a difference? Exact same damage on the coin, but with a different intent. You'd say it probably doesn't make a difference to whether the coin is genuine, right? But we've just changed thr majority of the surface of the coin, with intent. And then we get to intentional smoothing. Why is that different to intentional scratches? Because now the intent is to improve the look of the coin. Is the coin still genuine? It was intentional. Most would still say yes. But then we intentionally carve into the coin, improve designs etc.... say around 20% of the surface. Is it still genuine then? I believe most would still say yes, but it is tooled. But then we change 50% of the surface? What then? Is this suddenly where we draw the line, and say it's a fake? Or at 51%? Or 49%? Or do we have to go up to 90%? What percentage of the original surface is required for it to still be genuine? And why is this different to intentional scratches that also changed the majority of the surface? Because the aim was to improve the surface? Ridiculous thinking. It's all subjective. Or do you have to make it look like a different coin for it to be a fake? How faithful, or not, do you have to be to the original design to make it a fake? What arbitrary line shall we draw? Because it is an arbitrary line that has to be drawn with this kind of thinking. The only objective line that can be drawn is that it is still a genuine coin, with a surface that has been changed (whatever term you might use there).

So in the case of a modern fake die (B) overstruck on an original ancient flan (A), the original coin (A) is in fact still a genuine coin - albeit defaced with a modern fake (B) die. It is a fake B, but it is not a fake A - just a defaced A. Again, I come back to it - any other definition is just subjective.

Not the age of the flan, but the fact it was minted as a nickel on a specific year. It is a genuinely defaced nickel of a certain year. In my view, you would need to melt it down and re-hammer for it to not be genuine anymore.

Yes, it is a defaced nickel. How could it not be?

I am not making comment on the value of this coin specifically, and I have no doubt that there are more extreme examples. What I'm saying is that I don't value tooled coins in the same way as other coins. For me, a tooled coin is the value of a origin example, plus a small premium for people who like that sort of thing. Clearly I am not the intended market for this coin.

Thanks for the breakdown. To be clear, I wasn't talking about becoming a seller. I was talking about learning how to tool so that I can.... 'restore' coins with an excessive markup.

I mean, yea.... ditto to full disclosure etc. But how can there be that sort of asking price for something heavily cleaned and tooled?! Again... I mean... yea... free market and all. But I just can't get over the asking price, given the description. Edit: I have decided I should change careers

I have, on two occasions, bid in a Leu Auction beyond a medium or "low ball" bid. On both occasions, when I really wanted the coin, I did a max bid at the last moment which was the equivalent of what the top of the market would be, plus a premium. On both occasions, within the last 3 seconds, other bids came through within 20 CHF of my bid - but not beyond. Both. Times. Decide for yourself what happened. As for me, I will never bid on a high cost coin at Leu again.

Hahahaha. Greece will have to slug it out with Italy.

I take points on proof re illegally obtaines, and I think that's right. But the argument that they're low grade doesn't stand up. If they were illegally obtained they were illegally obtained (noting we don't know either way).

We have to remember that the history books about Phocas are written by those who overthrew him. There can be no doubt that they are significantly biased. That said, the proof is in the pudding. There can also be no doubt that, at the very least, he was woefully incompetent. Anyway, he was my first ERE Emperor. Behold, my Phocas - the first ancient gold coin I bought. Solidus, Constantinople 602-610 AD. Emperor Phocas 22mm, 4.48g

8 Reales Potosi, (1)666, Pillar and Waves type 8 Reales Potosi (1)704 Pillar and Waves type 8 Reales Mexico (171(0)(J)

This is my kind of thread. I love Spanish colonial coins. I especially love cob coins - there is something romantic about their crudeness and rugged beauty. Here is my collection of Spanish colonial cobs (other than the one posted above): 4 Reales Mexico City, Mexico Charles-Joanna, "Late Series". Assayer G to right, mintmark M to left (M-G). King's name as CHAROLVS. Nesmith-50f type. 13.57 grams. 2 Escudos Seville, Spain Gold cob. Philip II or Philip III. Assayer and mintmark not visible. Full cross. Shield crudely struck. 6.74g

Wow wow wow wow wow! What a coin! Amazing acquisition. This type has been on my list as well, but unlikely I will ever be able to purchase one. I recently picked up a colonial 2 Escudos. Mint: Bogota, Colombia Authority: Phillip IV, assayer A below mintmark NR to left Obverse: full shield with clear (N)RA to left Reverse: full but slightly doubled cross-and-tressure, encrustation in crevices Year: ~1640 Weight: 6.67 grams Catalogue: S-B20; KM-4.1.

I'm not sure this is even a coin. In any event, I have not seen an Eastern Roman design like this before.

A real beauty! And before they went nuts with their design too. Nice pick up.

Looks ok. But please post the grams. Also, please take two photos of the edge on both sides. There should be a small imperfection on opposite sides of the reeding.

I'm no expert Donna, but my take is either: - you have an original, and the other example has been cast from yours - you have a copy, and the other example is a worse copy of the original coin To me they look identical, except for the casting bubbles on the other coin and the scratches on yours. Did they fix the scratches when they cast it? Did they scratch yours intentionally? I don't know. But in my view they are originally the same coin.

As others have noted, it is a nice coin. But for that price, probably a bit too much. I would have been tempted for $1000. Also, I wouldn't worry about "grading" in Byzantine coins. If you like the look, that's what matters.

Also think crystallized, rather than plated - for the precise reason you listed. The missing chunk looks exactly like it should for a crystallized coin. But, I am no expert. I'd also note that this is why I never buy underweight or unknown weight coins - being underweight drives me crazy with the "but what if?" question.

I look forward to hearing about that! I have discussed this point in other forums and have argued strongly that Nicaea were a government in exile.

Thanks @TheTrachyEnjoyer But there us no such thing as post 1204 Byzantine coinage. There is Epirus, Trebizond, and Nicaea coinage, followed by Nicaea coinage pretending to be Byzantine coinage. Ok ok, just joking! Thanks for sharing and very informative.

I bid on a few coins, but was outbid. Like others, I have found Roma to be increasingly expensive. It was never cheap, but it has been getting worse. I used to accept this given their reputation, but they don't even have that anymore.

I'm no.9, but TBH - the description is hopelessly inaccurate. My coins aren't limited to 12, and they're not limited to certain names/Bible etc. Not including standard circulation coins, I have around 80 coins in my collection. My areas are defined by a period of time relevant to a historical empire/kingdom/state/cultural group. I make up my own set so to speak, and I don't subscribe to "having to own the whole set" - because my set is what I make it. I am also a little bit of no.3, but it is most certainly subservient to no.9. P.S. reading through the list again, perhaps I am actually a classic hunter - no.1