AussieCollector

Congrats on the coin! I love ERE coins, mainly for what they represent in history.

Re your coin, it is either a splendid Germanic imitation or a good example of falling standards.

On 1/2/2024 at 1:49 AM, Heliodromus said:

No - you're just arbitrarily redefining well defined terms to suit your own argument.

A flan and a coin are two different things.

Defacing is not the same as replacing.

If I took paint remover to the Mona Lisa, removed all the paint from the canvas, and spray painted a cartoon dog onto it, the resulting item is not:

a) The Mona Lisa (which is/was a painting, not a blank canvas), or

b) A genuine work by Leonardo da Vinvi, or

c) A defaced Mona Lisa

It is exactly what it is - a modern painting, painted on an old canvas.

 

 

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).

On 12/31/2023 at 12:02 PM, Heliodromus said:

The trouble with this type of definition is that you have some modern fakes overstruck on common ancients (e.g. Becker would sometimes do this), so it becomes meaningless to insist that it's still a genuine ancient coin.

At some point it becomes necessary to distinguish between the flan and the coin. The flan may be ancient, but if it was struck with modern fake dies, then the resulting coin is fake in the eyes of most people.

The same goes for the hobo nickel - if nothing is left of the nickel other than the metal it was made out of, then all you are left with is a moden token carved on a piece of recycled metal.

 

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. 

On 12/29/2023 at 1:49 AM, Heliodromus said:

Even if none of the original design is left? So it's the age of the flan that makes it "genuine" ?

I suppose it's a matter of degree and definition.

 

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. 

On 12/21/2023 at 1:49 AM, Heliodromus said:

Well, I suppose one could say that a hobo nickel is still a genuine nickel.

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

1 hour ago, kirispupis said:

FWIW, Roma sold an example of nearly the same quality that they claim wasn't tooled for 2x the price.

NAC sold one for even more.

Here's an NAC coin of nearly identical quality that went for a nice 25k!

This is an issue I'd love to own someday, but I'd be thrilled with this example.

But this does bring a healthy debate. To what should a tooled coin be compared? Should it be priced similar to the untooled original (roughly $500), or should it be at a discount from the similar coins that are (claimed to be) untooled? (with these coins going for $3k-$5k)

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.

On 12/13/2023 at 9:18 PM, Furryfrog02 said:

Big oof. Whoever confiscated these coins is a moron. I see several Byzantine coins in that picture....I wonder if now that they are "repatriating" them to Italy, will they be considered illegally obtained by the Italians since the originated in what is now Turkey? 
I wonder if there is any recourse for the owner whose property was stolen by the authorities? Doubtful.

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.

6 hours ago, thenickelguy said:

No longer in my sights. I turned it down. Someday another ancient or byzantine gold coin will come my way. Thanks to all who joined me in this post and to those who read. You saved me from making a mistake and I appreciate that.

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.