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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|