Provenance and excessively tooled coins

[Bonshaw]

I'm trying to understand the degree to which provenance protects from excessive tooling of ancient coins. I would love to tap into the collective experience on this forum. Obviously, if you get a coin from a respected source or collection, that is helpful. But I'm trying to understand more when tooling became more common.

If provenance of a coin is known (with good catalog photographs) from, for example, 1900, 1950, 1970, 2000, or 2010, would that make you less worried that the coin may have been excessively altered?  Is there a particular time at which skilled mechanical improvement of a the details of a worn coin became more common? 

Obviously, the burden is on us to do our due diligence regardless, but I would be very interested to hear opinions here about whether skilled tooling is a relatively recent phenomenon or not. 

Thanks for any input.

[JAZ Numismatics]

In my opinion, excessive alteration is easy to detect regardless of provenance. In fact, the type of coin involved is probably more of a factor than provenance. Large Ptolemaic bronzes, for instance, seem to attract the toolers - trying to turn a $50 coin into a $500 coin.

[CPK]

I would not depend on a coin's provenance as an assurance against tooling. From what I understand, tooling was less frowned-upon years ago than it is today.

Of course, if the coin is from the collection of a famous and discerning numismatist, or a particularly attentive collector, the chances that the coin had been tampered with would be much lower. But I would still depend on my own examination, and the opinions of others.

Edited Saturday at 09:37 PM by CPK

[Mucius Scaevola]

Even after years, I ask people that are well experienced with bronze coins, before bidding on any more expensive coins. For most I can recognise it myself, but some are really hard to spot. And even there, the opinions can vary a lot. A provenance will not protect you, back in times it was called restoration😅

[Bonshaw]

This is all very helpful. So if age of provenance is not a reliable indicator, it would be interesting for me to consider a case study of a few coins of Pantikapaion that were recently auctioned. I had questions about all three and would greatly appreciate expert opinions on these examples as I learn how to discriminate.

EXAMPLE 1:

First, we have a very artistic AG Diobol of Silenos that was recently sold in Leu 16, Lot 78:

Like most of the silver coins of that era from Pantikapaion there is some crystallization, and I presume that the coin is genuine. The level of wear of the details seems similar on obverse and reverse, so there are no obvious "smoking guns" for excessive tooling to my uneducated eye. But there are scrape marks around the figures on both obverse and reverse, always scraping away from the figure on the flat field. Is this an indication of rough treatment on cleaning? Or would you see any tooling here?

EXAMPLE 2:

An AE satyr (MacDonald 59) of better artistry and preservation than is usually seen for this coin, sold in CNG 127, lot 140:

 

This coin I find quite attractive and of high artistry, but some (but not all) details of the beard and other aspects of the coin seem much better defined than usual. Is this tooling that brought out some, but not all of the details of the beard and hair? Or would you see this as a natural wear pattern of either the coin or die?

EXAMPLE 3:

Another MacDonald 59 satyr, from Gorny & Mosch 306, lot 86.

 

This one has, once again, a very flat field, but has much better preservation of most of the details than I've seen in any other coin of this variety. But I have questions about it. There is some wear in either the die or the coin in the nose, lips, and the leaves in the wreath, but none in the beard or hair. Does this seem natural and just very well preserved, or tooled?

Thank you everyone for your opinions!  These are three coins that I really wondered about, and I appreciate any help as I learn how to think about tooling in these coins.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:30 PM by Bonshaw

[-monolith-]

That's why I purchase bronze coins like this and not like that. The bronze Pan's have obviously had there fields smoothed and portraits altered. I would rather have a slightly rough natural coin without alterations then an "altered" coin. However, I have no issues with "mechanically" cleaned coins that remove debris but do not otherwise alter the coin. 

[JAZ Numismatics]

The satyrs of Pantikapaion were, in general, extremely well produced - sharply engraved and strongly struck, and many of them were saved from circulation by collectors. (Or perhaps there was a large hoard find of uncirculated coins.) Therefore, many of them can look "too good to be true." Take a quick look at acsearch and see for yourself. So again, you have to study the particular series. 

[JayAg47]

These coins from the Gonzaga/Este Collection are technically tooled coins with a relatively modern counterstamp. But, that’s what makes them more expensive having one of the oldest and a famous provenance. 

 

It’s all a about perspectives, if a rich/famous collector stamps their initials  onto their ancient coin collection, it’s worth a lot in the next few centuries, but is it the same if I were to carve my name on to the field next to the portrait? Or at least stamp an aesthetically pleasing imagery like the one on the Gonzaga coins?

Classy if you’re rich, trashy if you’re poor! 

Edited Sunday at 01:02 AM by JayAg47

[John Conduitt]

Coins have always been tooled. The best provenance is one where there is as little time as possible from the ground to your hand, or at least from the ground to a photograph. It does help, however, if the coin has been sold several times, since at some point someone will mention any tooling or smoothing.
 

50 minutes ago, JAZ Numismatics said:

The satyrs of Pantikapaion were, in general, extremely well produced - sharply engraved and strongly struck, and many of them were saved from circulation by collectors. (Or perhaps there was a large hoard find of uncirculated coins.) Therefore, many of them can look "too good to be true." Take a quick look at acsearch and see for yourself. So again, you have to study the particular series. 

Saved from circulation by collectors?

 

20 minutes ago, JayAg47 said:

These coins from the Gonzaga/Este Collection are technically tooled coins with a relatively modern counterstamp. But, that’s what makes them more expensive having one of the oldest and a famous provenance. 

It’s all a about perspectives, if a rich/famous collector stamps their initials  onto their ancient coin collection, it’s worth a lot in the next few centuries, but is it the same if I were to carve my name on to the field next to the portrait? Or at least stamp an aesthetically pleasing imagery like the one on the Gonzaga coins?

Classy if you’re rich, trashy if you’re poor! 

This is trashy if you're rich. Anyone buying one of these is buying the graffiti, not the coin, which is fair enough but it doesn't enhance the coin. I don't think, oh great, a famous person scratched their name on the Colosseum, that makes the Colosseum better, but the graffiti can be interesting in itself.

[Bonshaw]

7 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

 

Saved from circulation by collectors?
 

Perhaps the collecting gene was already in our DNA in the 4th century BC?

We do know from Suetonius that Augustus Caesar collected / gifted coins... including foreign (to Rome) and ancient coins (before Augustus)

Edited Sunday at 12:20 AM by Bonshaw

[JAZ Numismatics]

19 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Saved from circulation by collectors?

Sorry. I meant saved by collectors from being overly circulated. I sometimes wonder how many people collected coins in the ancient world. We know of a few examples among the rich and famous, but I wonder how many ordinary schmucks like me set aside a few coins here and there for the sake of collecting, rather than merely saving money.

[JAZ Numismatics]

28 minutes ago, Bonshaw said:

Perhaps the collecting gene was already in our DNA in the 4th century BC?

I'll venture to guess coin collecting began with the invention of coins.

Edited Sunday at 12:45 AM by JAZ Numismatics

[Bonshaw]

7 minutes ago, JAZ Numismatics said:

I'll venture to guess coin collecting began with the invention of coins.

[JAZ Numismatics]

My wife wishes I collected rocks. "You paid WHAT for that little chunk of metal?" "Well honey, it is 2500 years old." "The rocks in the driveway are millions of years old and they're FREE!"

[CPK]

27 minutes ago, JAZ Numismatics said:

Sorry. I meant saved by collectors from being overly circulated. I sometimes wonder how many people collected coins in the ancient world. We know of a few examples among the rich and famous, but I wonder how many ordinary schmucks like me set aside a few coins here and there for the sake of collecting, rather than merely saving money.

I agree. I don't see why we should suppose that nobody really collected coins until, say, the Renaissance. The interest in collecting things seems pretty deeply rooted in human nature, and human nature hasn't really changed since ancient times.

[Bonshaw]

2 hours ago, Bonshaw said:

The provenance of Gronk's new acquisition is represented by the skull of the former owner at the lower left.

[Meander]

12 hours ago, Bonshaw said:

I'm trying to understand the degree to which provenance protects from excessive tooling of ancient coins. I would love to tap into the collective experience on this forum. Obviously, if you get a coin from a respected source or collection, that is helpful. But I'm trying to understand more when tooling became more common.

If provenance of a coin is known (with good catalog photographs) from, for example, 1900, 1950, 1970, 2000, or 2010, would that make you less worried that the coin may have been excessively altered?  Is there a particular time at which skilled mechanical improvement of a the details of a worn coin became more common? 

Obviously, the burden is on us to do our due diligence regardless, but I would be very interested to hear opinions here about whether skilled tooling is a relatively recent phenomenon or not. 

Thanks for any input.

I always assumed that an old pedigree can provide some protection agaist outright fakes because some methods like centrifugal casting are only a recent invention. Otherwise, coins and especially bronze ones have been tooled to improve their eye appeal since very long time and even more in those old times. Pedigree can also be dangerous as they tend to lead dealers and collectors to a less detailed examination under the assumption that the coin had been looked before and judged genuine. This happened to me recently with a very expensive coin. Fortunately, the dealer apologised to me immediately after re-examining the coin and took it back for a full refund.