A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Owl



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 7th 09, 02:38 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Owl

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
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Ads
  #2  
Old November 7th 09, 03:38 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Anka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 297
Default Owl

On Nov 6, 8:38�pm, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
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
Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos


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
  #3  
Old November 7th 09, 03:39 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Anka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 297
Default Owl

On Nov 6, 9:38�pm, Anka wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:38 pm, Reid Goldsborough wrote:

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
Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos


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


Waitaminnit........ She got a face lift!
  #4  
Old November 7th 09, 04:16 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Owl

On Nov 6, 9:39*pm, Anka wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:38 pm, Anka wrote:


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?


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...)

  #5  
Old November 7th 09, 03:38 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Alan Marshall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Owl

Looks like its overstuck on something ?


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos



  #6  
Old November 7th 09, 06:52 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
note.boy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Owl

Is it a cast copy or a genuine coin that's been cleaned or whizzed, or both,
or neither? -) Billy

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos



  #7  
Old November 7th 09, 09:02 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Anka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 297
Default Owl

On Nov 7, 12:52�pm, "note.boy" wrote:
Is it a cast copy or a genuine coin that's been cleaned or whizzed, or both,
or neither? �-) �Billy

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...



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
Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Maybe a test cut that was filled in?

~Anka
  #8  
Old November 7th 09, 09:16 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default Owl

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.

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.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #9  
Old November 7th 09, 11:38 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Jeff R.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Owl


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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.




  #10  
Old November 8th 09, 01:16 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Anka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 297
Default Owl

On Nov 7, 3:16�pm, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.