Owl
Reid Goldsborough
Anybody see anything wrong with this Owl:
http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Owl9.jpg
This is a trick question.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Anka
At first I thought the owl needed a perch, but no...
The owl doesn't have the problem, it's Athena who's exhibiting some
rather uneven wear and tear. Her nose and curls are not worn down,
but her cheek is quite smooth. Too much dermabrasion perhaps?
~Anka
Anka
Waitaminnit........ She got a face lift!
part...@yahoo.com
> Waitaminnit........ She got a face lift!
I was gonna say "Botox", but nothing looks odd in the forehead
area... Hmm, besides the oddly flat cheek I don't see anything odd
here. There's a crescent symbol behind the owl and a dot under the A,
which might be some sort of magistrate's marks, or perhaps indicate
one of the various copies of Athenian Owls made by contemporary cities/
states/civilizations. Or is the "trick" that it's a completely
ordinary, genuine Owl?
-Robert A. DeRose, Jr.
(Sorry I haven't been posting here much, I've been busy with work and
with my other main hobby, bird-watching. Maybe I can justify finally
buying an Owl by putting it under my bird-watching budget...)
Alan Marshall
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38v8jn....@news.alt.net...
note.boy
or neither? -) Billy
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38v8jn....@news.alt.net...
Anka
> Is it a cast copy or a genuine coin that's been cleaned or whizzed, or both,
> or neither? �-) �Billy
>
>
> news:38v8jn....@news.alt.net...
>
>
>
> > Lots of fascinating talk here lately about coins. <g> Here's something.
> > Anybody see anything wrong with this Owl:
>
> >http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Owl9.jpg
>
> > This is a trick question.
>
> > --
>
> > Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> > Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe a test cut that was filled in?
~Anka
Reid Goldsborough
> Maybe a test cut that was filled in?
About time you got wise. <g> Took you three answers. Still, a correct
answer is a correct answer, and congrats on your ingenuity and
perspicaciousness in checking my Web site.
This coin does in fact have a filled-in test cut, as Anka said. Here's
what I wrote (long):
The most distinguishing aspect of the above specimen, however, is its
having been repaired, with unmistakable evidence of an ancient test cut
being filled in at some point fairly recently. In some fields, such
repair or restoration work is considered acceptable and even beneficial.
With coinage, however, it's considered trickery, turning a coin into
something it's not.
The evidence of repair work, sometimes called tooling or doctoring, is
the disturbance in the surface of the coin at Athena's cheek, where the
test cut had been, and the coin being overweight [17.34 grams]. The
surface here is smoother than the surrounding area, and there are clear
and fairly straight borders separating the new surface from the original
surrounding surface.
The work appears to have been done by adding molten silver to the test
cut and flattening it out to blend it as much as possible with the
surrounding surface. Because test cutting displaces metal rather than
removing it, the added metal caused the coin to be heavier than the
Classical Owl standard of 17.2 grams and heavier as well than the vast
majority of Classical Owls encountered today. The chances of this
happening in ancient times is slim to none, since test-cut Owls were
valued the same as those not authenticated in this way and adding silver
to the coin would have been counterproductive.
In comparison with other types of coin doctoring, filling in a test cut
is far from the most egregious. The most deceptive doctoring, often
considered a type of counterfeiting, is converting a coin from a common
variety or type to a rare one by altering the legend or adding a mint
mark. Also more deceptive, though less so, is reengraving the detail in
the coin's devices and legends to make the coin appear to have
experienced less wear than it did. Filling in an ancient hole is similar
in its degree of deception to filling in an ancient test cut, though in
this case the weight wouldn't give it away since piercing a coin, unlike
test cutting, removes metal. It only follows that in some cases, when
heavy toning or patination is applied, coins that have had their holes
or test cuts filled have gone undetected. Also considered to be coin
doctoring, though the least deceptive, is smoothing out corrosion, the
corrosion typically having occurred during the many centuries that the
coin was buried underground. Though some collectors find it
objectionable, manipulating an ancient coin's surface by adding
artificial toning or patina is a routine part of the process of cleaning
ancient coins and isn't considered deceptive by most.
Even though filling in a test cut isn't the height of numismatic
iniquity, it does change the coin's history, and it's wrong headed,
lowering as it does a coin's market value. The above specimen is
otherwise attractive, and it's actually a good example of the bad things
that are sometimes done to coins.
Jeff R.
> Anka wrote:
>
>> Maybe a test cut that was filled in?
>
> About time you got wise. <g> Took you three answers.
Well, actually, she got it right in her first reply - as far as was
possible, given no details of weight.
(and less than an hour after your initial post!)
>...Still, a correct
> answer is a correct answer, and congrats on your ingenuity and
> perspicaciousness in checking my Web site.
...or even her perspicacity (KISS).
Oh - sorry ---> :-)
>... Because test cutting displaces metal rather than removing it, the added
>metal caused the coin to be heavier than the Classical Owl standard of 17.2
>grams
Well spotted. I'm glad you are now beginning to recognise this process.
Did you work that out for yourself?
Still seems a little too "neat" to me, since the "repairer" would surely
have ground down, then polished, the surface (after the repair) to match the
original profile. I would've thought that the final mass (given reasonably
accurate profiling) would be effectively indistinguishable from genuine. Is
Athena's cheek fatter than usual?
BTW - how consistent could you expect the "standard of 17.2g" to be,
thousands of years later? Given production values of the time (never mind
corrosion) what is a reasonable *range* of standard values?
>... since piercing a coin, unlike test cutting, removes metal.
Doesn't have to. Not if the piercing was done by punching, rather than
drilling. ("Piercing", strictly speaking, being a different process
altogether - unrelated to "forming a hole from which to hang the object" -
but who cares?)
Nice work, Reid.
Well done.
--
Jeff R.
Anka
> Anka wrote:
> > Maybe a test cut that was filled in?
>
> About time you got wise. <g> Took you three answers. Still, a correct
> answer is a correct answer, and congrats on your ingenuity and
> perspicaciousness in checking my Web site.
>
Well, at least I knew where to look for the answer. ;-)
~Anka
Reid Goldsborough
> Well, actually, she got it right in her first reply - as far as was
> possible, given no details of weight.
Actually, she said, or implied, in her first reply the exact opposite of
what happened to this coin. She said dermabrasion in referring to
Athena's cheek. That's where the work was done, but there's no
indication, in the photo or the coin in hand, that any metal has been
abraded from this coin. The reverse happened -- silver was added to this
coin. Still, she recognized that this was where the doctoring took place.
> Still seems a little too "neat" to me, since the "repairer" would surely
> have ground down, then polished, the surface (after the repair) to match the
> original profile.
Surely? Again, there's zero indication that this happened, from
examining the surface of the coin surrounding where the work was done
and from the extra weight of the coin. It appears that the gash caused
by the test cut was filled in, with the added metal no doubt smoothed
out at the border of the original surface. But that surface, the
original surface, looks totally original, not ground or polished, in the
pic as well as in hand.
> I would've thought that the final mass (given reasonably
> accurate profiling) would be effectively indistinguishable from genuine. Is
> Athena's cheek fatter than usual?
There's no "usual" here. Owls like virtually all ancient coins were hand
struck (a tiny minority were cast), and the height of the relief is far
less consistent than with modern machine-made coins.
> BTW - how consistent could you expect the "standard of 17.2g" to be,
> thousands of years later? Given production values of the time (never mind
> corrosion) what is a reasonable *range* of standard values?
The variability is orders of magnitude more on the underweight side, not
the overweight side. I haven't done a survey, but in looking at many
hundreds if not several thousand of these coins on the marketplace in
person and in catalogs I can't recall seeing any there were heavier than
17.2 grams. No doubt there are, with mistakes having inevitably been
made in ancient times in preparing the planchets, but not often.
Underweight coins are seen far more often, with minters in ancient times
having far more incentive to err this way and with wear in ancient times
and even more so corrosion over the millennia sometimes, not always,
leading to the loss of metal and weight.
ste...@no.spam.sbcglobal.net
17.02 must have equated to some standard weight, what was it ?
Reid Goldsborough
> Mine weighs 16.82 grams FYI. Also Athena is kind of chubby cheeked. That
> 17.02 must have equated to some standard weight, what was it ?
That's within the correct range, which is generally 16.5 to 17.2 grams,
though you sometimes see slightly lighter Owls from reputable dealers
that appear to be totally authentic, probably a result of intergranular
corrosion. The 17.2 grams is the Attic tetradrachm standard, used by
among others Alexander the Greek afterward, one of many weight standards
used in ancient times, with the standards themselves shifting over time,
typically but not always downward. Athena is always chubby cheeked,
unless the coin is really worn, with these being high-relief coins and
with the cheek being a highpoint though not as high in relief as her
hair. Post a link to a pic of your coin if you like.
Reid Goldsborough
> among others Alexander the Greek afterward, one of many weight standards
Should have read Alexander the Great, or Zorba the Greek, though I don't
know if the latter issued any Attic-standard tetradrachms.
Ian
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>
>> among others Alexander the Greek afterward, one of many weight standards
>
> Should have read Alexander the Great, or Zorba the Greek, though I don't
> know if the latter issued any Attic-standard tetradrachms.
>
music lingers on.