A blast from the past

[ski]

Cleaning is always a risk, so is repairing. But ask yourself, would you rather have a coin that's been sensitively cleaned or repaired virtually without a trace, or a fake?

to be honest Peck, my answer would be i wouldnt want a fake or a repaired coin. I can see the attraction of the repair for some.....its just not for me.

[VickySilver]

So should Evans have left Knossos the pile of rubble it was?

[scott]

i have seen pictures of repaired coins that were found in fragments, looks pretty good, ancient stuff, this cost what £100? i wouldn't say many people would be doing repairs to stick 2 random cut halfs together, although repairing hammered if you know 100% its the correct parts would be nice.

rest of greece will be rubble soon so yea

[Gary1000]

Cleaning is always a risk, so is repairing. But ask yourself, would you rather have a coin that's been sensitively cleaned or repaired virtually without a trace, or a fake?

to be honest Peck, my answer would be i wouldnt want a fake or a repaired coin. I can see the attraction of the repair for some.....its just not for me.

It's everyone own personal choice I guess. I'm sure seuk would be just as disappointed to find one of his coin wasn't a fake after all. I am quite happy to fill a space with a fake/altered date rather than a modern copy, at least it has taken some thought and possibly a bit of sweat in it production. Also I think repairing which in this case I wouldn't consider conserving, also to have its place and which would to be individually considered in the merits in each case. If one of the great rarities turned up damaged I sure it would be repaired in a heartbeat. This coin is now in my collection where it's going to stay, probably for many years. In total this coin has cost me under £100, it would cost me £500-700 to replace it.

[Debbie]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

[Rob]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

Like the five figures somebody in the US spent on the gold halfpenny I formerly owned. Just because the heavy gouge was repaired and smoothed over, it suddenly became eligible for slabbing as a Proof 64 Cameo by NGC as opposed to XXXX details, scratches/environmental damage or whatever reason they would give for refusing to grade. Or maybe they just turn a blind eye to certain favoured individuals if the repair job is good enough? I'm sure repair work goes on all the time, with the best jobs going undetected and the TPGs indifferent as long as the repair work isn't in your face.

I saw a piece of hammered gold once with a ticket where the (barely detectable) adjustment to the ticket indicating the coin was pierced was more obvious than the plugging done to repair the coin. The catalogue description for the date on the ticket was immensely helpful here.

[HistoricCoinage]

So should Evans have left Knossos the pile of rubble it was?

As an archaeologist myself I disagree with your interpretation of Evans restoring the site. When I first visited the site I was shocked as he has merely reconstructed the site with many of the styles based upon unsubstantial evidence and using new material. I don't think he should have left it as a pile of rubble but, unless properly recorded an imaginative reconstruction should not take place.

But, back to coins, that is a phenomenally good repair!

[azda]

Can we ask how much it cost for the repair job?

[Gary1000]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

Like the five figures somebody in the US spent on the gold halfpenny I formerly owned. Just because the heavy gouge was repaired and smoothed over, it suddenly became eligible for slabbing as a Proof 64 Cameo by NGC as opposed to XXXX details, scratches/environmental damage or whatever reason they would give for refusing to grade. Or maybe they just turn a blind eye to certain favoured individuals if the repair job is good enough? I'm sure repair work goes on all the time, with the best jobs going undetected and the TPGs indifferent as long as the repair work isn't in your face.

I saw a piece of hammered gold once with a ticket where the (barely detectable) adjustment to the ticket indicating the coin was pierced was more obvious than the plugging done to repair the coin. The catalogue description for the date on the ticket was immensely helpful here.

Allen Stockton said it's not unusual to get job lots of 50 coins for repair.

[Gary1000]

Can we ask how much it cost for the repair job?

$100 including Fedex back to me.

[VickySilver]

Rob's point is taken, and I don't argue in favor of the TPG, but to play devil's advocate I wonder how he would grade his pattern gold coin on simply its "current" merits? I haven't seen it and do congratulate Rob on his alertness in picking up this alteration.

I only wish the hairlines could have been avoided on the OP coin.

[ski]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

yes a good point, but you know many have stated here they prefer toned to pristine. the art/antique worlds certainly does much restoration, sadly there are many dishonest coin sellers, a problem shared with the art/antique community.

This coin is now in my collection where it's going to stay, probably for many years. In total this coin has cost me under £100, it would cost me £500-700 to replace it.

a great repair has allowed you the pleasure of owning such a piece, my concern however is when its eventually moved on, is the unscrupulous seller going to want £100 or try to pass it off as £700.

as ive said before..its a great repair......just not for me.

[VickySilver]

But I think you might have to admit that the aesthetics of the original coin were improved?

Did you visit Stockton's site and see the 1892 Micro "O" restoration?

What about chasing cast coins or more often medals - this was done at the mint many times?

[Rob]

Rob's point is taken, and I don't argue in favor of the TPG, but to play devil's advocate I wonder how he would grade his pattern gold coin on simply its "current" merits? I haven't seen it and do congratulate Rob on his alertness in picking up this alteration.

Knowing that it has been repaired I would say so in any description. The coin was practically as struck with a large scratch/scuff to the cheek. Now it is practically as struck with a repaired scratch/scuff to the cheek. Ironically, it is probably one of the rare instances where a repair wouldn't matter as the coin is unique, or at least I'm 99.9999% certain it is. As it happens, I paid more for the one with a scratch than I did for a different variety without. In these circumstances it all boils down to whether you want the coin badly enough. The price you are prepared to pay is somewhat flexible as a result. My bone of contention is the indifference of the TPGs. A $20-30K coin brings in big fees, and it wouldn't be good to offend such a good customer by refusing to grade it.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Rob

[ski]

But I think you might have to admit that the aesthetics of the original coin were improved?

Did you visit Stockton's site and see the 1892 Micro "O" restoration?

it may just be a question of different standards of photos, but the fields look very scratched in the repaired photo compared to the original photo.

If however the fields were okay in the original and have been scratched in the repair/cleaning process, are we not looking at one step forward and one step back?. i would answer honestly in saying yes in one aspect the aesthetics of the coin have been improved and in another maybe not so. if however the coins fields were scratched but didnt show in the original....then yes clearly the aesthetics have improved, its desireability however, ........maybe not for me.

No i havent looked at stocktons site.....perhaps i should out of interest, to get a feeling for the excitement this repair has generated....whilst i can marvel and admire the quality of work....im still not convinced i would wish to own a coin that has been retooled no matter how rare.....as in robs case of his gold halfpenny...if i were in a position to own such a piece.....i could live with the scratch knowing it was unique.....and original.

Edited November 3, 2012 by ski

[scott]

if we are talking about conservation, why do people hate slabs? surly putting a coin in one of those protects it?

as for repairs, i would rather see repairs to hammered or ancient pieces that have been damaged in the ground, and you have the bits for it. rather then hole plugging.

[copper123]

Americans DON'T hate slabs at all scott ,(And it's by far the biggist numismatic market in the world). It's just this tiny island over the pond (and most of europe too ), that hate the darn things

[TomGoodheart]

it may just be a question of different standards of photos, but the fields look very scratched in the repaired photo compared to the original photo. If however the fields were okay in the original and have been scratched in the repair/cleaning process, ...

I agree, it would be a shame if the hole had been repaired but then the coin scratched during cleaning up. Maybe that's more acceptable in the US? I looked at Alan Davisson's new site and to be honest several of the coins that were described as having 'fresh fields' looked as if they had the tell-tale scratches of a quick polish.

But it could just be the different photos. Was the coin otherwise 'as was' Gary, or have you noticed any differences to the surfaces following the repair?

For me I don't feel strongly either way. I presume in that grade it's a rare coin and admit it's always a bit offputting to see a hole. But if it were me, I don't know what I'd do. Many of the Civil War period coins can be found pierced, probably for suspension as a memento, supporter's badge or charm. I've seen some repaired very well, others not so well, since it seems to have been acceptable practice to plug them, at least since the Victorian era.

I guess, by today's standards, a visible repair (such as a silver plug in a gold coin) done to the standards of Gary's shilling would be fine to me. The aesthetic balance of the coin is restored, but it's not pretending to be pristine. But in the case of siege coins, the holing has historical interest itself. If I found one of my coins had been virtually invisibly mended, how would I feel? I don't know ... probably depends on how much I paid for it!

I think there's maybe a scale here. Removing blemishes at one end, straightening coins that have been bent, then through plugging holes or scratches .. but what if it were possible to 'repair' a coin that had been clipped? I have one rarity that has most of the legends gone. If someone could rebuild them ... add a bit more flan .. nah, I think that would be too much. When you get to extremes then I'm not sure there's much difference between a 'repair' and finding the original dies and striking a coin yourself. While strictly speaking, all that separates the two is a few centuries, those years make all the difference!

if we are talking about conservation, why do people hate slabs? surly putting a coin in one of those protects it?

as for repairs, i would rather see repairs to hammered or ancient pieces that have been damaged in the ground, and you have the bits for it. rather then hole plugging.

For me the thing about slabs is the associated third party grading (and everything that seems to go with that) rather than the slab itself. As I've said before, when I started collecting I put my coins in the plastic version of flips. Very handy to protect the coins from knocks and sticky fingers, so it's less the protection slabs afford I dislike, because I can see the purpose in that. But in the end I like to be able to see and handle my coins. And when most of them have some degree of patina anyway, it's not like BU copper or proofs, is it?

[Peterkin]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

The lion seems to have had a face job too. Any thoughts on that?

But who drills a hole in a 1905 shilling? There's a potentially interesting story to that I imagine. The shilling looks genuine enough - so it's not someone drilling a copy. And the hole is left rough, still even had the burr on it on the obverse side? If it had been drilled to go on a necklace, wouldn't they have cleared the burr off it - through use you might imagine the burr would be smoothed away and the edge of the hole on the reverse side would not be as sharp as it appears in the photo.

[1949threepence]

You can easily see the hairline scratches as a result of the cleaning, but the plug is undetectable to the naked eye (on the pic at any rate)

[Debbie]

Its interesting thinking about holes in coins. I wonder if it would've devalued / made them invalid at the time. Would for instance a holed two pound coin today be accepted, would the bank still honor its face value and exchange it for another as they do ripped notes? Perhaps we ought to experiment!

[Gary D]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

The lion seems to have had a face job too. Any thoughts on that?

But who drills a hole in a 1905 shilling? There's a potentially interesting story to that I imagine. The shilling looks genuine enough - so it's not someone drilling a copy. And the hole is left rough, still even had the burr on it on the obverse side? If it had been drilled to go on a necklace, wouldn't they have cleared the burr off it - through use you might imagine the burr would be smoothed away and the edge of the hole on the reverse side would not be as sharp as it appears in the photo.

I have no reason to believe that it's not genuine and from the wear it has seen a reasonable amount of circulation before it was drilled. Of course who ever drilled it did not appreciate that it was a rare coin and probably picked it for its date, likely a birth year. The hole does look very sharp on the photo so it would make you wonder if it was ever put on a chain, perhaps the recipient wasn't too impressed by being given an old shilling to hang around their neck. Anyway I think the nose is still kosher but looks better due to the toning it has received, I'm sure it had been cleaned in the past as it was a bit bright for a 100 year old coin.

[Peterkin]

I suppose coins are no different from any antique object really. We'd all prefer the genuine article in pristine condition. There will always be a place and a market for restored pieces rather than modern replicas. Just wish all people were honest about it!

The lion seems to have had a face job too. Any thoughts on that?

But who drills a hole in a 1905 shilling? There's a potentially interesting story to that I imagine. The shilling looks genuine enough - so it's not someone drilling a copy. And the hole is left rough, still even had the burr on it on the obverse side? If it had been drilled to go on a necklace, wouldn't they have cleared the burr off it - through use you might imagine the burr would be smoothed away and the edge of the hole on the reverse side would not be as sharp as it appears in the photo.

I have no reason to believe that it's not genuine and from the wear it has seen a reasonable amount of circulation before it was drilled. Of course who ever drilled it did not appreciate that it was a rare coin and probably picked it for its date, likely a birth year. The hole does look very sharp on the photo so it would make you wonder if it was ever put on a chain, perhaps the recipient wasn't too impressed by being given an old shilling to hang around their neck. Anyway I think the nose is still kosher but looks better due to the toning it has received, I'm sure it had been cleaned in the past as it was a bit bright for a 100 year old coin.

Thank you GaryD. A very interesting coin and has ilicited a very interesting debate. Do you know why the 1905 is such a rare coin? Is it just a case of attrition, or was the full mintage never released. Is there an intriguing story there? I have never found a satisfactory answer to this riddle. Congratulations on your coin, and thank you for taking the trouble to show the before and after - and weathering the storm of debate in good humour!

[declanwmagee]

Do you know why the 1905 is such a rare coin? Is it just a case of attrition, or was the full mintage never released. Is there an intriguing story there? I have never found a satisfactory answer to this riddle. Congratulations on your coin, and thank you for taking the trouble to show the before and after - and weathering the storm of debate in good humour!

I think it's something to do with work being done at the mint that year. I'm sure I read that somewhere. I might be completely wrong though.

[Peckris]

Do you know why the 1905 is such a rare coin? Is it just a case of attrition, or was the full mintage never released. Is there an intriguing story there? I have never found a satisfactory answer to this riddle. Congratulations on your coin, and thank you for taking the trouble to show the before and after - and weathering the storm of debate in good humour!

I think it's something to do with work being done at the mint that year. I'm sure I read that somewhere. I might be completely wrong though.

Yet strangely that didn't interfere with the bronze issues, nor the threepences and sixpences. In 1925 - a comparable year - it was due to the collapse of prices and wages following the massive inflation in WW1. A big drop in the money supply would naturally affect the large silver more than the small, or bronze.