Tooling - thoughts

[David Atherton]

Late to the game here ... but I believe there are two different types of 'smoothing' encountered on coins.

1. Smoothing during the cleaning process, confined to just the patina.

2. Smoothing of a coin's actual surface to enhance its appearance. Normally done when pitting or corrosion of the original surface is present.

#1. is quite acceptable, especially if the patina is rough or pitted. #2. is on a case by case basis, but when done lightly can greatly improve a coin's appearance (such as seen with @lordmarcovan's Claudius shown above).

Of course, 'tooling' is a completely different thing all together and should be avoided!

Edited January 31 by David Atherton

[Marsyas Mike]

Okay, so it is not tooling, exactly, but I believe this coin has had its surfaces manipulated in modern times:

Hadrian Æ Sestertius (130-138 A.D.)          Rome Mint [HADRI]ANVS AV[G COS III P P], bare-headed, draped bust right / [AD]VENTVI AVG GA[LLIAE] | [SC in ex.] | Hadrian on left standing right  holding scroll, Gallia on right standing left sacrificing with patera over altar, bull behind (24.00 grams / 31 x 29 mm) eBay Jan. 2024.  RIC II Part 3 2nd ed. 1746

 

There's not much left to "smooth" on this one - circulation pretty much smoothed it flat!  It's kind of an interesting type - too bad for all the wear.  Although I have a couple ancients with old musuem/collection numbers painted on, I've never seen the legends enhanced with a Sharpie!  No, I have not removed the ink yet; I think it gives the coin some added "pop" and is kind of funny. 

[Octavius]

2 hours ago, Marsyas Mike said:

Okay, so it is not tooling, exactly, but I believe this coin has had its surfaces manipulated in modern times:

Hadrian Æ Sestertius (130-138 A.D.)          Rome Mint [HADRI]ANVS AV[G COS III P P], bare-headed, draped bust right / [AD]VENTVI AVG GA[LLIAE] | [SC in ex.] | Hadrian on left standing right  holding scroll, Gallia on right standing left sacrificing with patera over altar, bull behind (24.00 grams / 31 x 29 mm) eBay Jan. 2024.  RIC II Part 3 2nd ed. 1746

 

There's not much left to "smooth" on this one - circulation pretty much smoothed it flat!  It's kind of an interesting type - too bad for all the wear.  Although I have a couple ancients with old musuem/collection numbers painted on, I've never seen the legends enhanced with a Sharpie!  No, I have not removed the ink yet; I think it gives the coin some added "pop" and is kind of funny. 

I would use the same term some dealers are now using,  "the coin has been enhanced".

[rasiel]

I've been reading the whole thread with interest and see how this can be a downright religious issue for many. I am, as elsewhere in life, more of a centrist. There's a gajillion cases of appalling tool jobs but I'm also skeptical of the No Way In Hell stance some people take. I wonder if their dream coin, the sort that might show up only once a decade or even lifetime, came to market but was tooled. Would they be willing to make an exception and relax their position?

A poster early in the thread made what I feel was a really good point which sadly nobody responded to. He brought up the case of the restoration of a painting that was professionally done. How do you feel about that? From what I can gather, what it comes down to is that there's no real opposition to the restoration of works that have deteriorated over time unless it was badly botched (monkey Jesus being the most infamous example). There's no public outrage even though it's perfectly clear that it necessarily involves modifying, removing or even outright re-fabricating damaged sections. Old books are rebound and their pages renewed, musical instruments have their innards rebuilt and the frescoes in Pompeii are freshened by laser. This is all routine, uncontroversial. And did you see the picket lines outside of the Notre Dame? Me neither. So why do we become the strictest of purists when it comes to coins? 

In my opinion there are a few potential answers. For one, unlike the cases elsewhere, these are antiquities we own. To some degree we feel the weight of the gaze of future generations and the vocal criticisms of those who oppose ownership and trade in antiquities. If we can be absolved at all it is only if we're good caretakers... and it's undeniable that once you apply the stylus to the metal you're crossing a Rubicon of sorts; no matter how skillful the effort there will be judgment.

Another aspect is more practical: the museum will hire only conservators with proven merit and we can be sure that the cathedral will be rebuilt with the expert care of a world-class team. But there is no guild of coin restorers to whom we can send in our coins for repair. No accolades for a job well done. No governing body with a stamp of approval. From the virtuoso down to the most unqualified hack all of these people are equally anonymous and we play no part in the work they do. Yet, as collectors, in the eyes of the world we're all of the same cloth and share in the guilt of the sins committed against the past.

Lastly, there is also a deeper, philosophical aspect at play. As demonstrated in the Ship of Theseus, we all yearn for the original because it is our most tangible link to the past. Any change, however small or skillful, removes us one step from that principle so it's only natural to resist it. Even if you, like me, are okay with tooling to some extent it's still undeniable that it comes with a little of that erasing of the ancient to be varnished over with the modern. There's just no getting around it and that comes with a psychological if not also a very real cost too.

I think I identify most with a sentiment posted many years ago on Yahoo which I can't directly quote but paraphrased was something like "it's ok to clean off the dirt around your IMP GORDIANVS AVG. Adding an AFR is not."

Rasiel

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, rasiel said:

A poster early in the thread made what I feel was a really good point which sadly nobody responded to. He brought up the case of the restoration of a painting that was professionally done.

I think that is the point exactly. A coin cannot be restored in the way a painting can. A professional restorer of paintings will always do all his restorations in a way that they are reversable, so that the painting can, if necessary, be seen as it has come down to us. The reengraving of coins is of course irreversable.

In addition, paintings are unique. The professional restoration of a painting aims to reveal what the artist originally intended for us to see. Coins are usually not unique and we know what was intended from higher quality specimens.

I am categorically against tooling of any kind. It amounts to the destruction of ancient artefacts and may often involve the intention to defraud unsuspecting collectors. 

Edited February 16 by Tejas

[Rand]

There is a fundamental difference between the professional restoration of a painting and tooling a coin. The first aims to preserve, the latter to deceive buyers, increasing selling value. Unlike books coins do not decay to dust.

Painting restorations are typically commissioned by owners/museums intending to keep their possession. Coin tooling is done for sale, as can be seen from the quick turnaround of these coins from a sale in original and tooled states.

I am well aware than many on the forum dislike the concept of independent third-party grading (and slabbing that comes with it). While I dislike the offered slabs and see them as merely packaging, I do see the merit of TPG, including in putting off the ‘restorers'. The proportion of modified coins in sales is shocking in my opinion. When dealers laugh about buyers voting for plastic, the truth the buyers are voting for original coins, often in lesser grades and not dealer’s FDCs for tooled coins.

It is for everyone to decide what kind of coins they collect and how much they pay. My vote is also firmly for ‘no tooling’ of any kind.

Edited February 17 by Rand

[Tejas]

Just to add another argument: If you allow for some minor tooling it will be difficult to draw a line between what is and what isn't acceptable. Once people accept some tooling it is a slippery slope. Therefore, tooling should in my view be banned and treated as a form of forgery.

PS I am aware that it is always a slippery slope. If tooling is banned, what about cleaning, repatination and smoothing? Personally, I think expert cleaning is fine, repatination is fine and some smoothing can be acceptable if it does not alter the design of the coin. But I guess that is a whole new debate.

Edited February 16 by Tejas

[idesofmarch01]

19 hours ago, rasiel said:

A poster early in the thread made what I feel was a really good point which sadly nobody responded to. He brought up the case of the restoration of a painting that was professionally done. How do you feel about that? From what I can gather, what it comes down to is that there's no real opposition to the restoration of works that have deteriorated over time unless it was badly botched (monkey Jesus being the most infamous example).

I've thought about this issue -- restoring a painting vs. tooling a coin -- many times, and for me the answer lies in the fundamental nature and intention of these two different objects.

Paintings are intended to be unique (or limited edition) works of art, and if it were possible, the artist would use material that would never degrade, thus preserving the original artistic intention.  The painting is not intended to circulate, be touched, have smoke discolor it or other detritus adhere to it, etc.  All of this deterioration is sadly inevitable, and thus it makes perfect sense (and is completely justifiable) to apply whatever minimal restoration that preserves the painting.

Coins, on the other hand, are intended for circulation and thus are expected to be worn and degraded over time.  They are not ever expected to last forever, thus making well-preserved, uncirculated examples extremely desirable, since they represent the untouched original vision of the engraver/artist.  Thus tooling or re-engraving a worn coin is a defacement of the coin, rather than a restoration, relative to its original purpose, and consequently it is unjustifiable to tool a coin.

Edited February 16 by idesofmarch01

[John Conduitt]

21 hours ago, rasiel said:

I've been reading the whole thread with interest and see how this can be a downright religious issue for many. I am, as elsewhere in life, more of a centrist. There's a gajillion cases of appalling tool jobs but I'm also skeptical of the No Way In Hell stance some people take. I wonder if their dream coin, the sort that might show up only once a decade or even lifetime, came to market but was tooled. Would they be willing to make an exception and relax their position?

A poster early in the thread made what I feel was a really good point which sadly nobody responded to. He brought up the case of the restoration of a painting that was professionally done. How do you feel about that? From what I can gather, what it comes down to is that there's no real opposition to the restoration of works that have deteriorated over time unless it was badly botched (monkey Jesus being the most infamous example). There's no public outrage even though it's perfectly clear that it necessarily involves modifying, removing or even outright re-fabricating damaged sections. Old books are rebound and their pages renewed, musical instruments have their innards rebuilt and the frescoes in Pompeii are freshened by laser. This is all routine, uncontroversial. And did you see the picket lines outside of the Notre Dame? Me neither. So why do we become the strictest of purists when it comes to coins? 

In my opinion there are a few potential answers. For one, unlike the cases elsewhere, these are antiquities we own. To some degree we feel the weight of the gaze of future generations and the vocal criticisms of those who oppose ownership and trade in antiquities. If we can be absolved at all it is only if we're good caretakers... and it's undeniable that once you apply the stylus to the metal you're crossing a Rubicon of sorts; no matter how skillful the effort there will be judgment.

Another aspect is more practical: the museum will hire only conservators with proven merit and we can be sure that the cathedral will be rebuilt with the expert care of a world-class team. But there is no guild of coin restorers to whom we can send in our coins for repair. No accolades for a job well done. No governing body with a stamp of approval. From the virtuoso down to the most unqualified hack all of these people are equally anonymous and we play no part in the work they do. Yet, as collectors, in the eyes of the world we're all of the same cloth and share in the guilt of the sins committed against the past.

Lastly, there is also a deeper, philosophical aspect at play. As demonstrated in the Ship of Theseus, we all yearn for the original because it is our most tangible link to the past. Any change, however small or skillful, removes us one step from that principle so it's only natural to resist it. Even if you, like me, are okay with tooling to some extent it's still undeniable that it comes with a little of that erasing of the ancient to be varnished over with the modern. There's just no getting around it and that comes with a psychological if not also a very real cost too.

I think I identify most with a sentiment posted many years ago on Yahoo which I can't directly quote but paraphrased was something like "it's ok to clean off the dirt around your IMP GORDIANVS AVG. Adding an AFR is not."

Rasiel

I don't think the attitude of ancient coin collectors is as you describe. I think we make a distinction between:
- deceptive tooling - trying to recut features that aren't there and may never have been there.
- clumsy tooling - cleaning around the devices so harshly that the coin is damaged.
- cleaning - removing patina or toning.
- restoring - removing encrustations. Repatinating with a 'natural' process. Plugging holes.
- deceptive restoration - adding patina or toning that wouldn't occur by itself.

Only the first is completely unacceptable to me (although I would avoid some of the others). I would never buy a coin that has been tooled in that way. The reason is as you describe - you buy an ancient coin because it is ancient. If you want a reproduction, you can buy one of those instead. Once you scratch off the original design, there is nothing ancient left.

Collectors of ancient coins are actually a pretty relaxed lot. Most people who collect modern coins (and slabs) won't even consider a coin that's been cleaned (or anything a slabbing company might arbitrarily reject). Most collectors of ancient coins only care about cleaning if it has been done so badly it detracts from the appeal of the coin.

The attitude to ancient coins is the same as art. If you look at the above list from the point of view of art rather than coins, I think the same applies. It's fine for a painting to be touched up if the alternative is we lose it, just as it's fine to treat bronze disease. But it's not fine if the person doing it does a bad job, and even less so if they take it upon themselves to paint something different, something they think we want to see. We wouldn't agree with painting restoration if it meant turning the Mona Lisa into Taylor Swift, no matter how brilliant the painting of Taylor Swift was.

[mcwyler]

Good points here from many angles.

My view is that tooling is not only deceptive, but unnecessary. Unlike collectors of modern coins, we mostly accept that many if not most of our coins will not only show signs of use but sometimes significant wear. 

I'll go further - some of my favourite coins are really well worn. An orichalcum sestertius, for example, can grow old very gracefully. Why tool it? If there's enough detail to identify it, I'm happy. 

The only motive for tooling in most cases is profit. Don't make these people richer! 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

I would categorize my latest Domitian as oversmoothed, especially on the reverse.  Note the patchy, rosy surfaces.  There was probably more crud on the reverse, most apparent behind the 'OR', and a ghost patch is visible in front of Jupiter's legs. It's kind of strange that the coin has such a major split grade, F/aVG. The coin isn't in hand yet so I can't say for sure there's tooling on the obverse legends. It's my personal theory that the smoothing obliterated most of what was left of the reverse legend and ate into the design.  I think I can see a ghost IOVI.

The coin was just a throw-in, a cheap example of one of my favorite types, but I unless the corrosion was active BD, I would have rather just had the rough reverse surfaces.  It's definitely a face-up coin.

I'll often avoid coins if they have that rosy, overworked look.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum, a partially uncleaned (uncleaned would be with all the dirt) provincial Caracalla tetradrachm, which I purchased to stay uncleaned.  This was probably offered as uncleaned because of the flowstone(? - the shiny white stuff on the obverse) made it difficult to clean.  I was putting together a set of different denominations in an uncleaned state.

This type of aqua patina often has those brown patches.  Although Im still disappointed in myself that I overpaid for the coin (I'm a sucker for aqua patinas), I think the person did a decent job of being relatively conservative at cleaning it.