Tooling - thoughts

[maridvnvm]

I must admit that I really dislike the concept of tooling coins. A tooled coin is a coin where details on a coin have been "enhanced" by an engraver in modern times. The act of tooling is not related to the preservation of the coin but is a simple attempt to increase the appeal of a coin by engraving details on the coin to apparently increase the grade by "enhancing" these details.

I would never knowingly buy a tooled coin.

I spotted this Sestertius of Trajan recently whilst browsing an auction and thought that the style was "off".

Looking at the auction description they declare the tooling. "Details on this type were tooled with meticulous care." but then go on to grade the coin as "Exremely Fine" (sic).

The question that always crosses my mind in these cases is "How much if that detail is real?"

I am not very familiar with the type and thought it a worthwhile exercise to look at untooled examples to get an idea of what it should look like as a bit of self education. As part of this exercise I stumbled across the following, which I believe to be the "host" or "before tooling" example of the coin. I come to this conclusion by the congruence of much of the underlying die and flan shape.

This makes it much easier to determine what detail is "enhanced".

I must admit that I prefer the "before" coin but then that's me.... Which do you prefer? Do you knowingly buy tooled coins? How happy are you with such "enhancements" having seen the before and after? 

Martin

[John Conduitt]

I wouldn't knowingly buy a tooled coin. Of course, they look wrong and are not authentic. The only exception might be in cases I've seen described as tooled where it seems to be nothing more than over-enthusiastic cleaning. I'd never buy something where someone recreated the engraving. Even if it was a very cheap version of a very rare coin that I desperately needed, I wouldn't enjoy it and wouldn't want to encourage whoever did it.

Apparently, there are parts of the world where it is more acceptible, but I've never actually heard of anyone specifically who knowingly buys tooled coins.

[DLTcoins]

One has to wonder... how many masterfully "enhanced" coins go unflagged and unnoticed? 

 

 

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Thanks for sharing Martin; I think I’m gonna throw up… and here are other « nice » examples: 

 

 

 

[Roman Collector]

2 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

I must admit that I really dislike the concept of tooling coins. A tooled coin is a coin where details on a coin have been "enhanced" by an engraver in modern times. The act of tooling is not related to the preservation of the coin but is a simple attempt to increase the appeal of a coin by engraving details on the coin to apparently increase the grade by "enhancing" these details.

I would never knowingly buy a tooled coin.

I spotted this Sestertius of Trajan recently whilst browsing an auction and thought that the style was "off".

Looking at the auction description they declare the tooling. "Details on this type were tooled with meticulous care." but then go on to grade the coin as "Exremely Fine" (sic).

The question that always crosses my mind in these cases is "How much if that detail is real?"

I am not very familiar with the type and thought it a worthwhile exercise to look at untooled examples to get an idea of what it should look like as a bit of self education. As part of this exercise I stumbled across the following, which I believe to be the "host" or "before tooling" example of the coin. I come to this conclusion by the congruence of much of the underlying die and flan shape.

This makes it much easier to determine what detail is "enhanced".

I must admit that I prefer the "before" coin but then that's me.... Which do you prefer? Do you knowingly buy tooled coins? How happy are you with such "enhancements" having seen the before and after? 

Martin

I concur that's the exact same coin, when it had "honest wear" and then after it was ruined. The "EF" grade is unjustified. In my eyes, the coin is now worthless.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the second century was a time of great prosperity in the Roman Empire and coins circulated for DECADES. Bronze coins of the "five good emperors" and their families are typically heavily worn. If you see a bronze of this period with a lot of detail, be EXTREMELY WARY of tooling. Your best defense is to familiarize yourself with the coins of the period by looking at thousands of them. You'll get a feel for the style of authentic examples. Tooled coins rarely depict hair or the folds of clothing in an authentic second century style and the trained eye can detect many tooled coins instantly by gestalt. Another important defense is to buy high-grade bronzes (because genuine EF bronzes of the period typically bring 4 or 5 figures) ONLY from major auction firms whose numismatists you trust.

[Roman Collector]

4 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Thanks for sharing Martin; I think I’m gonna throw up… and here are other « nice » examples: 

 

 

 

Egregious!! The way the drapery is rendered on Spes, Annona and Ceres is a dead giveaway on those bronzes.

[Al Kowsky]

Martin, Thanks for this enlightening comparison 😮! The tooled sestertius is an astonishing piece of engraving & the fake patina is impressive 🧐. Who ever did this work was a master. I have never bought a tooled coin, however, I wouldn't mind acquiring a tooled sestertius like the one you illustrate, knowing exactly what it is. A tooled coin is no longer a genuine ancient coin, it's a creation that's really what an artist wishes he'd like an ancient coin to look like. How do you assess the value of a finely worked tooled coin 🤔? It certainly isn't worth what a genuine coin of comparable condition is. The problem with tooled coins is when they are passed-off as genuine ancient coins. I probably have about a half dozen sestertii, none of which cost me a great deal of money & would never spend a fortune on a high grade example.

[Roman Collector]

Someone show the coin's pre-tooled appearance to this poor soul at this Italian coin discussion board. He's thinking of buying the toolie!!

 

 

[Roman Collector]

These specimens from the British Museum are about as high grade as you'll ever see (because the British Museum has the resources to acquire them). Notice how the depiction of the folds of drapery on the reverse figure is completely different than on the toolie.

[Deinomenid]

This coin, which is clearly tooled, sat in a Nomos preauction for a month at CHF125,000 estimate. People were laughing about it for weeks before the company admitted  it was tooled.

It went for 20,000, down from a likely sales price of 200,000. Huge value destruction by the tooler, though I worry why it was actually bought. I suspect  it will be sold  in a private sale in a decade or so as a legitimate coin to someone with money but  not a good eye. Oddly,  it has already fooled 2 houses (Nomos and Stacks), and a supposedly knowledgeable owner,  Price.

https://nomosag.com/nomos-26-27-28/1030

 

 

 

[maridvnvm]

Not all the engravers are anywhere near as skilled. This "coin" is currently up for auction and I am not sure that anything on it is untooled.

The reverse is laughable.

[Roman Collector]

38 minutes ago, maridvnvm said:

The reverse is laughable.

That is courting the wrath of Athena Nikephoros or Roma or whoever that goddess is supposed to be!! That is unwise.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Roman Collector

[maridvnvm]

Poor Roma indeed.....

[Marsyas Mike]

5 hours ago, maridvnvm said:

I must admit that I really dislike the concept of tooling coins. A tooled coin is a coin where details on a coin have been "enhanced" by an engraver in modern times. The act of tooling is not related to the preservation of the coin but is a simple attempt to increase the appeal of a coin by engraving details on the coin to apparently increase the grade by "enhancing" these details.

I would never knowingly buy a tooled coin.

I spotted this Sestertius of Trajan recently whilst browsing an auction and thought that the style was "off".

Looking at the auction description they declare the tooling. "Details on this type were tooled with meticulous care." but then go on to grade the coin as "Exremely Fine" (sic).

The question that always crosses my mind in these cases is "How much if that detail is real?"

I am not very familiar with the type and thought it a worthwhile exercise to look at untooled examples to get an idea of what it should look like as a bit of self education. As part of this exercise I stumbled across the following, which I believe to be the "host" or "before tooling" example of the coin. I come to this conclusion by the congruence of much of the underlying die and flan shape.

This makes it much easier to determine what detail is "enhanced".

I must admit that I prefer the "before" coin but then that's me.... Which do you prefer? Do you knowingly buy tooled coins? How happy are you with such "enhancements" having seen the before and after? 

Martin

Very interesting post.  I thought it peculiar that for all "the meticulous care" taken to smooth it, the smoother smoothed away the aegis on Trajan's bust!  The examples posted by @Roman Collector do not have an aegis.  My guess is that both aegis and non-aegis busts were originally issued.  I wonder if the tooler saw the BM version and figured the aegis was just a die flaw and so smoothed it away?

Yeah, I prefer the non-tooled example.  

As for tooling or "smoothing" in general, I am not against it altogether.  There are instances where a thick, blobby patina (which chemically is part of the coin, it seems to me) obscures the original design.  Tooling this down to get back to an original surface, if done with care, does not seem like a bad thing to me.  Opinions vary, I'm sure.  

Thanks for sharing that interesting example.

 

 

[maridvnvm]

If you change the metal then it is tooling. If you are removing patina then it is cleaning through to smoothing.

[Prieure de Sion]

Generally, all bronzes on the market (unless you find a treasure trove of new coins) are processed. Otherwise you could not sell the bronzes at all. None of you would buy the bronzes as they are found today. The question is therefore - how have the bronzes been worked / restored? 

There are several "types" of "restoration" here. 

1. there are bronzes that look like new. But they did not look like that when they were found. They have been worked and smoothed - for as long as possible. And then they look almost like new. But beware - these coins have been processed and smoothed WITHOUT (minimal) changing the original structures! These bronzes are controversial - some collectors reject such coins - others enjoy the very nice quality. I also collect such coins privately, because as long as the original image has NOT (minimal) been manipulated - I think it is okay. 

But for this kind of treatment, the basic substance of the bronze must be good! 

2. Some bronzes, however, are already heavily corroded when they are found or have a base substance that is not quite so good that cleaning and restoration is only possible to a certain extent - but no further. 

2a) But then there are "restorers" who think that even if the bronze has too little substance, the bronze must look like point 1! And then they go too far in the treatment! These are then the coins that have been "worked to death", which I'm sure you also know. Since it has no basic substance, when cleaning / restoring it, things have to be carved that no longer exist at all. These are the famous "tooled" coins - which in many places do not look like the original. The portrait is modern, the hair is not like the original, etc. You should not put such coins in your collection, because they differ greatly from the original. 

2b) And then there are "restorers" who know when a coin simply cannot be cleaned any further. They know - an end of the basic substance has been reached and more is not possible. If further work is done - the restorer has to "invent things". And a serious restorer stops the work here. These bronzes are not as beautiful as in point 1 (where there was simply more base material to work with) - but they are honest bronzes. 

 

But (unless you find a coin that has been preserved for 2000 years) in general - all bronzes are tooled. Otherwise you would only get a lump of metal to buy. But it is the question of the restorer and the basic substance that is present - a good restorer accepts the end of the possible - a bad restorer tries (without substance) to make the coin better than it is. That is the difference.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Prieure de Sion

[Prieure de Sion]

3 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Thanks for sharing Martin; I think I’m gonna throw up… and here are other « nice » examples: 

... I can't see all the details on my mobile phone now - but I would still buy the Claudius even after the editing. Subject to a view on a large display. On a mobile phone it's always such a thing.

[idesofmarch01]

8 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

But (unless you find a coin that has been preserved for 2000 years) in general - all bronzes are tooled.

I disagree with this statement 100% -- at least by my definition of tooling.

At some point in their lifetime, all ancient coins ceased circulating and were stored, abandoned, lost, forgotten, etc.  When this happened, the coin exhibited some specific state of wear: it might have had only circulation wear, it may have had scratches, gouges, nicks, cuts, etc.  It is unlikely that it had surface deposits and pitting (especially gold coins) caused by chemical processes.  AEs, though, are especially susceptible to surface adhesions and corrosion that attack the coin after it ceases circulating.

By my definition, cleaning and reasonably restoring a bronze coin to its state and condition when it ceased circulating is not tooling.  This includes reasonable removal of surface adhesions -- i.e., smoothing -- that do not specifically enhance the devices or legends.

In some cases there may be gray areas as to whether the smoothing enhanced the coin's devices and legends, and this is open to interpretation for that specific coin.  There are also cases of overly smoothed fields that just look artificial even though the smoothing simply removed adhesions and lessened pits that were not present on the coin when it ceased circulating.  For these coins it's a judgment call as to whether a collector will accept that coin's condition as being authentic.

When in doubt, engage the services of an expert who can examine the coin in-hand.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

I would never knowingly buy a tooled piece for my collection. I view them as almost as bad as fakes since the work of the original die cutter is obliterated.

[CPK]

Like most collectors I would not knowingly buy a tooled coin. I hope that none in my collection currently are tooled.

Smoothing I can accept, at least to a degree.

[LONGINUS]

Years ago I submitted several coins to NGC for slabbing.

When the group was completed and shipped back to me, two of the coins (much to my horror) had the dreaded “Smoothing” notation on the label. A third coin had a “Brushed” notation. Needless to say I was not very happy. I’ve purchased coins with ”Scratches” and “Graffiti” notations because those flaws could be ancient thus adding interest to the coin’s history.

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by LONGINUS

[DonnaML]

3 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

But (unless you find a coin that has been preserved for 2000 years) in general - all bronzes are tooled. 

I also disagree, because you seem to include smoothing of the fields -- even without any alteration of the actual designs -- within the definition of tooling. Most definitions I've seen do not include it, and most authorities consider smoothing by itself to be within the realm of acceptablity, and not something that renders a coin valueless, as long as it's disclosed by the dealer. 

But the possibility of undisclosed tooling is why I've never spent a lot of money on a Roman bronze. I know that tooling is also possible with silver and gold, but it's apparently much more difficult to accomplish.

[maridvnvm]

@Roman Collector I have cross poted to the other board. Thanks.

[AETHER]

i hate the idea of tooling. far worse then any harsh cleaning.

[sand]

I won't buy a tooled or smoothed coin. However, there seem to be many different definitions, for the words "tooling" and "smoothing". I have my own definitions, which are the following. Perhaps, some of you may find my definitions to be interesting, or useful, or thought provoking.

To me, it seems that, for many ancient coin dealers, the word "smoothing" has devolved to the point, that "smoothing" has become a euphemism for "tooling". Therefore, for me, the words "tooling" and "smoothing" mean the same thing. Therefore, if an ancient coin is advertised as "smoothed", then I won't buy it. Therefore, I'll just use the word "tooling", and I'll ignore the word "smoothing".

For me, a tooled coin, is a coin that has been altered, so that the underlying design has been changed. For me, the "underlying design" is a combination of the underlying metal, plus any traces of the original design which are present in the patina.

To tool a coin, it is not necessary to alter the underlying metal. If the patina is thick enough, then one can carve an entire design, out of the patina, without touching the underlying metal. That would be tooling, for me.

If the patina is thick, then if someone is removing some (but not all) of the patina, then one must be careful, not to remove parts of the patina in such a way, that the underlying design is altered. That would be tooling, for me.

And, of course, if the underlying metal is altered, then that is tooling, for me.

Edited May 26, 2023 by sand