Jump to content

HD Rauch auctioning a Philip II tetradrachm with a repaired test cut that was originally from a 2022 Leu auction


filolif

Recommended Posts

In the course of researching some coins, I noticed this coin in the upcoming HD Rauch auction sold last year at Leu but has since had it's test cut repaired.

HD Rauch Photo:

image00050.png

 

Leu Web Auction 24 Lot 1020 (March 2022) Photo:

10324152.png

 

Link to the lot in HD Rauch sale: http://auctions.live-bidder.com/clients/rauch/en/sale/showLot/1411/50

The description only mentions (via Google translate) "Traces of processing in Rv." Seems a bit concerning to me but maybe they don't know. I have not emailed them about it as I'm not sure how responsive they'd be.

A real shame as the coin in its original state was quite pleasing.

Edited by filolif
  • Like 22
  • Thanks 3
  • Clap 1
  • Cry 4
  • Mind blown 1
  • Shock 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, insane catch on your part. Did you just remember the Leu auction, or did you come across it on acsearch looking for price comps and recognize the coin?

Honestly makes you wonder, as the repair is impressive and I would never have noticed without the "before" photo. Definitely a shame 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for sharing. Would love to see more of this on the forum. You should really let them know though, regardless if they're responsive or not depending on how they act afterwards will better inform all of us as to what standing Rauch should have in the community.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Yes 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jfp7375 said:

Wow, insane catch on your part. Did you just remember the Leu auction, or did you come across it on acsearch looking for price comps and recognize the coin?

Honestly makes you wonder, as the repair is impressive and I would never have noticed without the "before" photo. Definitely a shame 

I'd like to claim I have that good a memory (and for some coins I do) but this was something I noticed while using acsearch to look for past sale history. Comparing the two coins now, it's relatively easy to see the manipulation of that area but I'm not sure it would have been as clear to me without a before photo to reference. This is all made especially hard when you can't look at a coin in hand either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zadie said:

Thank you so much for sharing. Would love to see more of this on the forum. You should really let them know though, regardless if they're responsive or not depending on how they act afterwards will better inform all of us as to what standing Rauch should have in the community.

🙏 Happy to share. I have just sent an email to HD Rauch as well and will post a follow-up in this thread should I receive any response.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, expat said:

An impressive bit of sleuthing. My opinion is they should be informed and secondly the original, to me, has more character even though the restoration is an incredible piece of workmanship.

I am really not sure we are looking at the same coin here. Upon a close look, it is really hard to oversee that something on the reverse is not right. And I am pretty sure in hand it will even be more obvious. Incredible workmanship is something else. 
But this is of course only my opinion ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor

Very interesting and disturbing. 

I wonder what the weight difference is between the coin with the test cut and the repaired version.  Test cuts really don't remove metal as much as displace it.  Adding metal to fill the cut should increase the weight by a significant amount I'd guess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, septim said:

I am really not sure we are looking at the same coin here. Upon a close look, it is really hard to oversee that something on the reverse is not right. And I am pretty sure in hand it will even be more obvious. Incredible workmanship is something else. 
But this is of course only my opinion ...

Why do you think it’s not the same coin?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor
20 minutes ago, septim said:

I am really not sure we are looking at the same coin here. Upon a close look, it is really hard to oversee that something on the reverse is not right. And I am pretty sure in hand it will even be more obvious. Incredible workmanship is something else. 
But this is of course only my opinion ...

Of course it's the same coin. The shapes of the flans and the distance from the beading to the edges are identical. There's even the same scratch running from the nose to the edge on both obverses. Plus, there's a certain muddiness visible where the repairs were made that isn't present on the original.

Edited by DonnaML
  • Like 6
  • Yes 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lection learned by me: never use any irony again (I meant: I totally disagree that it is incredible workmanship, so it seems (!) like we might not look at the same coin). just say, what you mean ... 

No to the public: Of course it is the same coin. Leu: 14,36 g; Rauch: 14,42 g - The weights make sense

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, septim said:

Lection learned by me: never use any irony again (I meant: I totally disagree that it is incredible workmanship, so it seems (!) like we might not look at the same coin). just say, what you mean ... 

No to the public: Of course it is the same coin. Leu: 14,36 g; Rauch: 14,42 g - The weights make sense

 

I'm getting the sense that English may not be your first language, hence the confusion. Needless to say, if you meant to tell a joke, it did not come through.

But yes, this is clearly the same coin. The only circumstance in which it would not be the same coin is if they were both very highly executed fakes... which seems more unlikely than the repaired test cut theory.

Edited by filolif
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor
12 minutes ago, septim said:

Wow ... I will focus on reading here only in the future ...

You're actually being that hypersensitive that you're never going to post again because people reacted to what you said, as opposed to what you meant? How was anyone supposed to know that you weren't serious? It's not as if you have a long posting history here. And it's not as if anyone insulted you. Don't take any of this personally, please. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, septim said:

Lection learned by me: never use any irony again (I meant: I totally disagree that it is incredible workmanship, so it seems (!) like we might not look at the same coin). just say, what you mean ... 

No to the public: Of course it is the same coin. Leu: 14,36 g; Rauch: 14,42 g - The weights make sense

 

I thought you meant that - referring to not thinking it was a good repair. It was unfortunate it could also be read as you didn’t believe it was a repair at all.

Edited by John Conduitt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Benefactor

So 14.36 grams with the cut and 14.42 grams with the repair suggests that some metal in the raised parts of the cut were smoothed down to approximately the surface of the devices and fields, and then metal was added, with fine tooling done as the final step.  I wonder what the fineness of the metal was for the repair.  I also assume that patination was added to blend the repair into the coin's overall color.  

I once had a Brunswick 1 1/2 thalers coin from the 1680's that had a repaired hole at 12 o'clock.  These coins were frequently used for jewelry.  The color of the repair was very close to that of the coin, even mimicking the toning.  As it turned out the repair material was wax!  I don't think this the cause, though, for the OP coin.

Edited by robinjojo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran out of acsearch image credits before I could confirm, but it seems that there are more coins with repaired test cuts that Rauch is selling.
Rauch 116 Lot 47:

image00047.png

Leu Web Auction 24 Lot 1019 (March 2022):
10324151.png

 

Rauch 116 Lot 49 (this one is really ugly and obvious):
image00049.jpg?1684259915


Leu Web Auction 24 Lot 1021 (March 2022):
image.png.1f7ebfd3396535c29d7d112fed3a710e.png

 

There may be others. I'll keep looking. Whoever is "repairing" these coins really is misguided.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Cry 1
  • Shock 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting case. I’m curious about the firm’s answer. It could be the game of one consignor with a mind to gamble, an able tooler and money to spend. 
Curious also that these are all the same type. Did they fetch high prices at Leu’s, and is it possible to find out the buyer’s paddle number? Then you know where to find more tooled coins.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DonnaML said:

One unnoticed or undisclosed repair is bad, three is suspicious! Does Rauch have the reputation of being a reputable firm?

Very much so. Always good experience.

 

I recall reporting a fake on their listing, which they removed immediately. This was the only time I did this in person - incidentally noted the firm's office in Vienna when passing by. This was a few years ago.

Edited by Rand
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, septim said:

Lection learned by me: never use any irony again (I meant: I totally disagree that it is incredible workmanship, so it seems (!) like we might not look at the same coin). just say, what you mean ... 

No to the public: Of course it is the same coin. Leu: 14,36 g; Rauch: 14,42 g - The weights make sense

 

If it helps, I find that if humour is intended, ending the sentence with (LOL) helps to indicate that to the casual reader.

Edited by Topcat7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Rauch’s response:

thank you for the information. We noticed that there has been „something“ done on the reverse, hence the description „Bearbeitungsspuren im Rv“, which means tooling on reverse. A filled test cut is a good explanation for this, but we could not tell for sure, therefore the describtion of tooling. The same case are the three following lots from the same consignor.

I’d much prefer they explicitly state what has happened to the coin and not just abstractly mention ‘traces of tooling’. Buyer beware I guess. Also shame on that consigner for ruining 4 nice coins. 

 

  • Like 6
  • Cry 1
  • Yes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...