Building on the smoothing/buyer preference thread...a would you rather?

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Modern-day buyers usually shy away from smoothing or tooling, but what about moderate, non-BD environmental damage?  I suppose this would also apply to intact crystallization.

GALBA AR silver tetradrachm. Antioch, 68-69 AD. AUTOKRATwR GALBAC KAICAR CEBACTOC, bare head right. Reverse - ETOUC B, Eagle standing facing on opposed laurel branches, head left, wreath in beak, palm in left field. Prieur 100; RPC 4198. 28mm, 10.0g.

My recent purchase was a sea-find, and some base metals were leached out over time.  The coin didn't fare too badly and the roughness/spalling isn't bad. There were several 'normal' examples in Fine/Fine plus with good surfaces for $150-200 more.  A non-sea version of this piece would probably be pretty expensive.

I wouldn't even have noticed the weight difference if it hadn't been mentioned in the description.

It will be interesting to see collector preferences.  The environmental damage could also apply to moderate roughness (no BD) on AE's.

It would also apply to intact crystallization.  My nice Eucratides tetradrachm is probably crystallized, based on the weight and surfaces, but it was the only way I was going to be able to afford one.

[shanxi]

If I buy a coin the overall appearance is important, wear, damages, patina ....all together.

About environmental damages. These are part of the coin's history. I accept it when it's not too bad or the coin is very rare. 

And about the so called "crystallisation". Sometimes the structures  enhance the beauty of a coin. I like it.  As an example:

Lydia, Kings of Lydia, Kroisos
circa 560-546 BC
Obv.: On the left, forepart of lion with open mouth to right confronting, on the right, forepart of bull to left.
Rev.: Incuse square
Ag, 7x8mm,0.87g
Ref.: Berk 26–7. Traité I 413. SNG Kayhan 1020-1. SNG Aulock 8213.

 

 

Edited July 25 by shanxi

[TIF]

For me, it depends on the overall availability of the type.  Often-- at least with bronze provincials-- there may be no or few examples known, or maybe the type is rarely available.  If it's an interesting coin-- iconography or whatever I'm after in each specific case-- I will buy it unless there is obvious tooling.  Clumsy cleaning marks and smoothing are not deterrents.

Edited July 25 by TIF

[MrMonkeySwag96]

As a rule, I avoid “crystallized” silver. I don’t want to entertain the risk of my coin shattering into pieces when I handle it.

However, I’m fine with surface porosity/roughness if it doesn’t obscure the details too much. 

Edited July 25 by MrMonkeySwag96

[KenDorney]

I've always preferred coins with honest wear but genuine surfaces.  I dont collect anything tooled at all, and not too many in my collection are smoothed, but thats generally acceptable.  BUT, many people are still buying tooled and smoothed coins.  Every week.  And it seems they are paying high prices too.  Below is an example sold this past weekend, for $1,570 (includes BP).  Honestly I'm speechless!  To me, personally, I find it too tooled to be worth much more than $100.  But many would probably disagree.  When all the dust settles from this past few years it will be interesting to see what happens when these modified coins come back on the market.

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/concordianumismatic/browse?a=4794&l=5774198

And this is just the only example I took note of.  I am sure there were others over the weekend.

[Phil Anthos]

That's just criminal.  🤨

~ Peter 

[Roman Collector]

44 minutes ago, KenDorney said:

I've always preferred coins with honest wear but genuine surfaces.  I dont collect anything tooled at all, and not too many in my collection are smoothed, but thats generally acceptable.  BUT, many people are still buying tooled and smoothed coins.  Every week.  And it seems they are paying high prices too.  Below is an example sold this past weekend, for $1,570 (includes BP).  Honestly I'm speechless!  To me, personally, I find it too tooled to be worth much more than $100.  But many would probably disagree.  When all the dust settles from this past few years it will be interesting to see what happens when these modified coins come back on the market.

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/concordianumismatic/browse?a=4794&l=5774198

And this is just the only example I took note of.  I am sure there were others over the weekend.

That's a travesty. 

[CPK]

55 minutes ago, KenDorney said:

I've always preferred coins with honest wear but genuine surfaces.  I dont collect anything tooled at all, and not too many in my collection are smoothed, but thats generally acceptable.  BUT, many people are still buying tooled and smoothed coins.  Every week.  And it seems they are paying high prices too.  Below is an example sold this past weekend, for $1,570 (includes BP).  Honestly I'm speechless!  To me, personally, I find it too tooled to be worth much more than $100.  But many would probably disagree.  When all the dust settles from this past few years it will be interesting to see what happens when these modified coins come back on the market.

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/concordianumismatic/browse?a=4794&l=5774198

And this is just the only example I took note of.  I am sure there were others over the weekend.

I remember that coin. I couldn't believe how high the bidding was. 

[Sulla80]

1 hour ago, KenDorney said:

To me, personally, I find it too tooled to be worth much more than $100. 

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/concordianumismatic/browse?a=4794&l=5774198

I would only argue that $100 is for too much for this coin.  The description is quite ridiculous: "Magnificent example with striking details! Tooled."

"striking details" would more fairly read "modern details".

[Salomons Cat]

@KenDorney, at this point it almost looks like a fantasy coin. And even really good specimens already sold for less...


This is a coin from my collection that has moderate environmental damage, but no loss of weight. Sometimes, photos exaggerate the impact of some roughness. And when you hold the coin in hand you don't even notice the roughness so much because the coin is much smaller. 

On the other hand, this is what I would not want:

This coin hammered for $3600 at HA two months ago. Not an unreasonable price. But I would just be too worried about the crystallization. Which was not mentioned in the auction description, by the way. In my opinion, it should be the duty of any seller to mention such things. Of course, NGC did not mention it either. 
This is also a reminder that impeccable surfaces are not a guarantee that a coin is not crystallized...

Edited July 27 by Salomons Cat