Gallienus Antelope Restrike

[nogoodnicksleft]

This coin was purchased more by luck than anything being the second coin in a lot of 2 in which I bid primarily for the other coin. On closer inspection it has been struck at least twice probably thrice. In the exergue you have the officina mark of Gamma stamped over the officina mark for XII. Behind the head of the Antelope you have faint marks which might be the tips of some wings or the edge of a rudder.

A few questions

Is it correct that it was during the time of Gallienus that the Imperial mints started using Officina marks & is it safe to rule out a restrike on an old coin from another emporer ?
If the marks to the rear of the head of the Antelope are wings or a rudder that would indicate a third Officina (Alpha, Delta or Eta) if not  what else could they be ?

Could this be a coin that has been struck by 3 different Officina from the rome mint in the reign of Gallienus ?

What conclusions can we draw from it?

[curtislclay]

I'd say the change of the officina number was made by the engraver in the die, not by overstrike with a second die.

Both officina XII and officina Γ in Gallienus' Animal series have virtually the same type, an antelope walking l. or r. with legend DIANAE CONS AVG, but with long straight horns in officina Γ and shorter curving horns in officina XII. See Ian Carradice's analysis of the Animal series in the Cunetio publication.

So it would be possible that a die cut for officina Γ was first wrongly labeled XII and then corrected. Unfortunately those critical horns cannot be seen on your coin!

I cannot explain the "rudder over shoulder" that replaces the horns on your coin. There is an Animal type showing rudder over shoulder, namely centaur walking left holding globe in r. hand and rudder over shoulder with l., of officina H labeled APOLLINI CONS AVG. However, I don't see how this rudder over shoulder could ever have been transferred from a Centaur die to an Antelope die.

[nogoodnicksleft]

Thanks for your reply Curtis

Changes to the die, that is something that didn't occur to me.

You see the hollowed impression marks around the edge of legend near the beginning & end are these signs of a coin being over struck on a single strike or of being struck more than once or could it be either?

Am I right in thinking that there are recorded instances of coins being restruck with a different die type ? and if so are any from dies from different Officina? 

 

[curtislclay]

The line in the field to the left on the reverse seems to be the incuse, reversed image of Gallienus' profile on the obverse, resulting from die clashing. I don't know about the line to the right.

Overstruck reverses are a fairly common and widespread phenomenon, brilliantly explained by Colin Kraay in conversation with me in 1974 as apparently proving that two different rev. dies were being used alternately and at rapid speed with the same obv. die, the overstrikes resulting when a finished coin was not removed quickly enough from the obv. die so was erroneously struck a second time with the second rev. die.

Such overstrikes certainly often involve different rev. types, which many modern numismatists have taken to be the marks of different officinae. Whether cases are known of dies of different marked officinae being overstruck on each other, I cannot say offhand. I think such overstrikes become generally less frequent in the later empire. But that could partly be just my own ignorance; I have never really collected or studied late Roman coins.

[SC]

Gobl 716 was struck with the Gamma and 750 with the XII.

The Gamma was clearly inscribed more deeply but could have been there first with a shallower XII engraved over it when the mint of Rome changed its system.

Pace Carradice Gobel shows 716 with Gamma with long wavy horns or short curved horns and 750 with XII with fairly straight and long horns.

I wonder if the rudder like mark is due to die damage. Might explain then why the details of the head and horns are so weak.

Shawn

[nogoodnicksleft]

Thanks for your comments guys

Yes I think Curtis is correct about the impression line near the legend on the left being the Incuse.

The rudder mark seems too regular in shape in my opinion for it to be a die damage, but I don't have any experience of what die damage marks would look like.

The N in CONS is also a bit odd.

Here a a picture of the reverse lit from the right.