Tooling - thoughts

[Steppenfool]

Tooling like this is why I stay away from Large Roman Bronzes altogether. Also absolutely dying laughing at the Julia Domna on the Severus Aureus from @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, looks absolutely ridiculous.

[Roman Collector]

As long as condition cranks keep paying exorbitant amounts for these fraudulently altered coins, the practice of tooling will continue because there is considerable financial incentive to do so. I worry that the problem of tooling will only get worse in the future because the demand for "high grade" material is only increasing because this generation was brought up to collect slabs, not coins. If there were no demand for this sort of thing, it wouldn't happen.

The saddest part of this whole tale is that I would have gladly purchased the unaltered, pleasantly worn coin last October when it was for sale at Solidus. Now it has been forever transmogrified into a fantasy piece with only a superficial resemblance to its original appearance. There's no undoing this. You can't uncook an egg. Will there be any pleasing aVF sestertii left for a 22nd century collector to appreciate? Or will they all get facelifts and botox?

The only way for this trend to stop is for would-be buyers of such coins to change their mindset. First of all, ask yourself if it truly matters whether one of a hundred million examples is graded by some authority as MS-70 instead of MS-69. Is this mindset appropriate even for modern coinage? Secondly, ask yourself whether this desire for perfection is reasonable when you're talking about hand-made items struck two-thousand years ago, used in commercial transactions for years, and then buried in the ground for centuries.

Be introspective. If you would reject the untooled sestertius at three figures but would pay four figures for it after it has been tooled, are you truly collecting ancient coins or are you collecting something akin to an AI-generated NFT? Ask yourself whether this practice is legitimate "restoration" or if it's a criminal enterprise designed to part money from a fool.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Roman Collector
egregious crimes against the comma

[John Conduitt]

10 hours ago, Roman Collector said:

As long as condition cranks keep paying exorbitant amounts for these fraudulently altered coins, the practice of tooling will continue because there is considerable financial incentive to do so. I worry that the problem of tooling will only get worse in the future because the demand for "high grade" material is only increasing because this generation was brought up to collect slabs, not coins. If there were no demand for this sort of thing, it wouldn't happen.

The saddest part of this whole tale is that I would have gladly purchased the unaltered, pleasantly worn coin last October when it was for sale at Solidus. Now it has been forever transmogrified into a fantasy piece with only a superficial resemblance to its original appearance. There's no undoing this. You can't uncook an egg. Will there be any pleasing aVF sestertii left for a 22nd century collector to appreciate? Or will they all get facelifts and botox?

The only way for this trend to stop is for would-be buyers of such coins to change their mindset. First of all, ask yourself if it truly matters whether one of a hundred million examples is graded by some authority as MS-70 instead of MS-69. Is this mindset appropriate even for modern coinage? Secondly, ask yourself whether this desire for perfection is reasonable when you're talking about hand-made items struck two-thousand years ago, used in commercial transactions for years, and then buried in the ground for centuries.

Be introspective. If you would reject the untooled sestertius at three figures but would pay four figures for it after it has been tooled, are you truly collecting ancient coins or are you collecting something akin to an AI-generated NFT? Ask yourself whether this practice is legitimate "restoration" or if it's a criminal enterprise designed to part money from a fool.

Presumably, the grading company wouldn't grade a tooled coin. So if they are slabbers, they will learn the hard way.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I have always wondered definitively what's going on with this Decius double sestertius.  I mentioned recently that I thought the weird-looking eye had resulted from heavy corrosion to the face and it being dug out.  However, there's not a lot of crud in the obverse fields and there's an unusual amount of hair definition on the back of the head.   However, it would seem that they would have tooled in the crown and the front.  Do you think that it's a true toolie or the obverse fields are smoothed and the crud dug out of the eye?  One would think they would have gone all out on both the obverse and the reverse were it a full-fledged toolie.

I bought it from a reputable dealer and I asked him at the time of purchased if it was tooled.  I've never been very happy with this piece.

The only knowingly tooled piece I have is an Aurelian and Severina double sestertius and it was described as being tooled.  I only bought it because it was the only way I was going to have one of those.  I actually regret that one far less than the Decius.

[AussieCollector]

Unpopular opinion - I don't think tooling is as bad as it's made out to be.

Before I say why, I'd firstly note, I'd prefer it if people didn't. And if they do, not try to pass it off as not tooled.

Secondly, I wouldn't seek out a tooled coin.

That said, I don't have a disproportionate reaction to tooled coins and, if I have one in my collection, don't mind that much.

At the end of the day, the coin is still a genuine coin from the time period I intended to buy it, and still represents the small piece of history intended.

But I'm also not like many (most?) coin collectors in that I don't particularly care about grade, intentional scratches and graffiti etc, as long as I like the overall look of the coin.

[hides]

[John Conduitt]

16 minutes ago, AussieCollector said:

At the end of the day, the coin is still a genuine coin from the time period I intended to buy it, and still represents the small piece of history intended.

If the tooling was ever of the quality of the original... Elderly Woman Ruins 19th Century Fresco in Restoration Attempt

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

yes, I remember that story!

[AussieCollector]

37 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

If the tooling was ever of the quality of the original... Elderly Woman Ruins 19th Century Fresco in Restoration Attempt

Absolutely. But if you don't like, don't buy it. If they mess it up, it's completely undesirable.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, AussieCollector said:

At the end of the day, the coin is still a genuine coin from the time period I intended to buy it, and still represents the small piece of history intended.

 

I guess I have trouble seeing a heavily tooled coin as still being "genuine," simply because the piece of metal used to have an image upon it that was struck 2,000 years ago. If somebody carved a portrait of Abraham Lincoln over the original portrait, would it still be a genuine ancient coin to you? If not, then where do you draw the line as to how much the original image has to be altered in order for a coin to lose its status as "genuine"?

[AussieCollector]

3 hours ago, DonnaML said:

I guess I have trouble seeing a heavily tooled coin as still being "genuine," simply because the piece of metal used to have an image upon it that was struck 2,000 years ago. If somebody carved a portrait of Abraham Lincoln over the original portrait, would it still be a genuine ancient coin to you? If not, then where do you draw the line as to how much the original image has to be altered in order for a coin to lose its status as "genuine"?

Yes, it would be. Completely ruined, but yes - it's still genuine. At the end of the day, regardless of the graffiti (in whatever form it takes), it is a genuine coin struck thousands of years ago. 

P.S. - like any other graffiti, it's basically up to the collector as to whether it's still desirable.

Edited May 28, 2023 by AussieCollector

[idesofmarch01]

9 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

Yes, it would be. Completely ruined, but yes - it's still genuine. At the end of the day, regardless of the graffiti (in whatever form it takes), it is a genuine coin struck thousands of years ago.

I'm in agreement with DonnaML on this.  This issue seems to boil down to a reasonable, functional definition of "genuine."

For me it's pretty simple: Just because a piece of metal (flan) is 2000 years old doesn't make it genuine.  Being able to say "This was once an ancient coin but it's been re-engraved in modern times" isn't sufficient to tell someone "This IS an ancient coin" rather than "This WAS an ancient coin."  Features that have been added, enhanced, or altered by tooling mean the coin isn't fully genuine.  If I look at an ancient coin and I know that its current condition is better than its condition when it ceased circulating in ancient times, then it's not collectible for me.

[John Conduitt]

15 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

Yes, it would be. Completely ruined, but yes - it's still genuine. At the end of the day, regardless of the graffiti (in whatever form it takes), it is a genuine coin struck thousands of years ago. 

P.S. - like any other graffiti, it's basically up to the collector as to whether it's still desirable.

All metal is 'original' in that it was made in stars billions of years ago. If someone removes the original image from an ancient coin, it's just a raw material once more. I don't think wow, that Tetricus antoninianus, that was made from a melted down Hadrian sestertius!

I collect coins with graffiti. I think I would differentiate those from tooled coins on the basis that the graffiti is historical and related to events at the time it was made. It is not trying to trick someone into paying more for a worn coin. In that sense, I would be more likely to want a coin with Abraham Lincoln carved over it - if done with appropriate historical context. But I would buy it because of the graffiti, and the price would relate to the graffiti, not the original.
 

Edited May 28, 2023 by John Conduitt

[AussieCollector]

Safe to say, I disagree @idesofmarch01 and @John Conduitt

Unless the coin is melted down, it is still an original coin. It's not the original surface, but it is still a coin struck thousands of years ago - regardless of what someone has scratched intentionally, unintentionally, to be misleading, or not.

I didn't really expect people to agree however, hence the "unpopular opinion" statement.

But think about it, anything less than I have stated above is just subjective.

[maridvnvm]

With the topic of tooling being an active discussion I thought it might be worth adding another example of tooling into the mix.

I saw this up for sale recently....

Commodus, AE, Sestertius.
Obv: IMP L AVREL COMMODVS AVG GERM SARM. Head of Commodus, laureate, right.
Rev: TR POT COS P P, S C, DE SARM. Two captives seated left and right at the base of a trophy.
Ref: RIC 1571 var.
18.34 g. 31.94 mm
Good Very Fine.
Details in the fields of the coin were tooled with extreme care.
Very Rare with rev. legend

I thought it would be interesting to try and determine what has been changed on the coin by trying to compare it with some coins from the original dies. This is not always as easy as you would home but in this case I think I have found what appears to be a double die match.

Commodus, AE, Sestertius.
Obv: IMP L AVREL COMMODVS AVG GERM SARM. Head of Commodus, laureate, right.
Rev: TR P II COS P P, S C, DE SARM. Two captives seated left and right at the base of a trophy.

I believe that these are the dies from which the original coin was struck from before it was tooled.  The engraver has kept broadly to the original reverse, adding "detail" here and there but created a new reverse legend along the way....

Thoughts???

I find the term "tooled with extreme care" quite puzzling.

[Salomons Cat]

1 hour ago, maridvnvm said:

I find the term "tooled with extreme care" quite puzzling.

Wow, that’s horrible. There is really no detail left that resembles the original design. There is no way how this can be called “Good very fine”. For me, this coin is worthless…

I assume that someone from the auction house was sitting next to the tooler and watching him while he did it.
That’s how they know that he ruined the coin “with extreme care”.

Similar to the “gently tooled” coin that @DonnaML mentioned.

I would say that this description is deceptive because the “good very fine” is really out of place. The auction house certainly did not do that on purpose. It’s very unlikely that they get any benefit from this. After adding descriptions to hundreds of coins the employee was probably quite tired and didn’t know anymore what a Roman coins looks like.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[Salomons Cat]

Some additional thoughts.
What would you say - where is the difference between restoring art and tooling of a coin?
Is there a difference if it is done correctly? If the original aspect of a coin is completely conserved or even restored after it had some work done, would we even call it "tooling"?

Let's have a look at the restoration and conservation of an old artwork.

Or, if the video is too long:

Now, let's take a look at these coins:

(source: https://coinweek.com/the-hole-truth-ancient-coins-that-were-pierced/)

Quote

A hoard of third-century Roman gold aurei has been trickling out onto the market recently. Reportedly found “somewhere in Ukraine”, it consisted of some 250 pieces, all holed, perhaps for wear as ornaments by Sarmatian steppe nomad tribal warriors that captured them as booty or received them as tribute. The coins were so expertly plugged by a modern goldsmith that the repair is barely detectable under a microscope.

Most collectors now regard this as an unacceptable practice, and 10 of these pieces were withdrawn from a recent Classical Numismatics Group (CNG) auction^[1].

Would you prefer one of the pierced aurei or a plugged one in your collection?

 

[Limes]

On 5/26/2023 at 10:48 AM, 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

Can someone tool my upper body too? I want a package like Tiber is carrying! 🤣

And that second indeed seems like the original coin, good find Martin. Its a shame someone ruined the coin like that. 

[GregH]

On 5/27/2023 at 12:21 AM, Prieure de Sion said:

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

Are we talking mostly about the big impressive coins - sestertii & dupondii?

I'm assuming the plentiful 4th century bronzes, which sell cheaply, hardly make the tooling project worthwhile.

[maridvnvm]

I don't seem to be able to let this subject go. I was looking for some more examples where I could possibly identify a tooled coin and tie it back to the original dies. I think I have a couple of more examples but a lot of this is getting into speculation as the coins under comparison differ so much it is sometimes difficult to determine if they are from the same dies.

I saw a Commodus Sestertius for sale some time back that was described as "Smoothed and tooled in ancient time". How they determined that the tooling is ancient is interesting but may relate to the coin having a pedigree back to 1898. 

Here is the coin in question. To my eyes the portrait has been sharpened but the reverse appears to have been completely reworked. I have not studied the sestertii of this period well but there is also something that jars with me about the obverse legend.

Looking at the BM collection there is an obverse die with the same legend break combined with this reverse type that could be a candidate for the obverse die that originated the coin above. Though it is quite worn and there is very little evidence left of the reverse to give any clues.

a bit more digging and the following coin emerges which could well be from the same die pair as the BM example and has some reverse legend but not really close to that of the OP.

I have to wonder if another heavily worn example from this die pair was the host for the OP example.

Whilst looking at the above I was able to ignore some other coins of the type because they had a very different obverse legend break, such as this example from the BM.

This led me to look at other coins that might be derived from this one. This led me to the following coin. Two images, from two separate sales. I suspect that this coin comes from the same obverse die as this second BM example and may also have undergone some cosmetic enhancement on both sided.

I am wondering if I should stop looking at coins for a bit. It has been a long, hard year and perhaps I am just seeing things.

Anyone have any thoughts on these?

[Gordon Grant]

Tooling is not restricted to top level coins,I have a Jovian Bronze that is suspicious.

[Heliodromus]

On 5/28/2023 at 1:14 AM, AussieCollector said:

Yes, it would be. Completely ruined, but yes - it's still genuine. At the end of the day, regardless of the graffiti (in whatever form it takes), it is a genuine coin struck thousands of years ago. 

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

[DonnaML]

3 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

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

But almost certainly no longer a coin, in the sense of being acceptable as currency.

[DonnaML]

This is probably a dumb question with a simple answer, but here goes: I have often read, and have even repeated in this thread, that silver coins are almost never tooled because it's more difficult to do so than with bronze coins. But: why is it so much more difficult?

[Heliodromus]

Hmm... I would think the opposite - that silver and gold can much more easily be worked on without detection since there is no patina to consider.

How about this one, for example !

[Heliodromus]

12 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

But almost certainly no longer a coin, in the sense of being acceptable as currency.

Probably not, although given how lenient banks are on burned/partial banknotes, who knows? Could always spend the nickel in a vending machine I suppose.

But what I really meant was that just like the tooled ancient, then fact the hobo nickel was a genuine coin doesn't mean that it really is afterwards. A matter of degree I suppose, but when tooling goes beyond sharpening up details and moves into adding details and faces then to me it becomes borderline whether that's still a "genuine coin".

How about this one, sold recently as described as "professionally restored".

Not only did the "restoration" (aka tooling) involve giving Constantine a new face on the reverse, but also accidentally giving him a different type of wreath ties on the obverse (original had one tie extending across the neck). Can this be considered as genuine? A matter of definition I suppose!