New theory about Provincial "dimples"

[kerux]

The following is an excerpt from a Moneta-L discussion concerning some new research into the all too common "dimples" found on many Provincial reverses.

" In about 280 BC, the Ptolemes proceded with a monetary reform characterized by a considerable increase of the weight of their coinage, a modification of the value of money and alloys. Post-reform coins present the same iconographical types as the previous coins, but show the "dimple". Older coins were re-struck.
Without entering into the details of the conclusions and the thousands of careful analysis reported in the Moneta 19, one can summarize the essential conclusion by saying that the "dimple" has the advantage of marking permanently a coin. It is impossible to fill it, it cannot be filed off, and cannot be removed. It distinguishes old copper coins from more recent copper+lead coins.

During the Roman era, the dimple was maintained to distinguish city coinage, copper-lead-tin coinage of weak metallic value, from Roman coins composed of copper+zinc (sestertii, for instance) while both types of coins had the same weight,

The sole purpose of the dimple was to enable to separate coins of a poor alloy from coins of pure copper (Egypt) from Roman coins of high metallic value. It prevented that the diversity of monetary types of Roman and local source might enable crooks to deceive people. The report of value between the the two alloys was significant, from 1 to 3 or 4 !
These are the conclusions of two years of efforts, technical tests and research. All other theories - including that supported by our friend Kokotailo - were examined, analysed, compared, tested and finally discarded. The evidence is that these "holes", made prior to striking, (as rightly pointed out by Dave Welsh) were of no use to striking or to preparing the coins, and that it was impossible to lathe filing coins (Roman coins do not present this "finish"), all this is contained in detail in the 200 pages of the report published in Moneta 19."

References to Robert Kokotailo and Dave Welsh are inserted in the above qotation on my initiative for comparison's sake.

I certainly accept and respect that Robert and David have a wide experience in the field of numismatics, but it would be wrong to allege that Mr.Depeyrot does not have at least the same experience...if not more... and that the published conclusions of the team of specialists he headed do not have a least as much value as the theories hotly defended by our two friends in Moneta_L discussion group.
Boy...what a discussion about a hole !"

It seems the conventional views are under fire...what do you think of these new suggestions?

Joe W.

[Automan]

Does this theory apply only to coins of Egypt? I do not know much about these coins, so I can't really comment. Regarding later, Roman provincial coins of other regions, though, I make the following observations:

- The theory does not explain the concentric "circles" present on this dimpled coin that I once owned (not terribly easy to see the circles, unfortunately). It seems wholly unconvincing to me that this particular coin should have been valued at a different rate than other large Nic ad Istr bronzes.

- In fact, the theory of the dimple serving to indicate reduced value of later provincial coins can seriously questioned due to the fact that there are tremendous amounts of Moesian dimpled coins bearing marks of value. Why would you strike a coin bearing a value mark "E", if then the dimple served to reduce that value to 1/3 or 1/4?

Auto

[slokind]

Here is a Caracalla from Pautalia that I traded (having two), so no longer my property.  The lathe-like rings are especially plain here, however, so I'll post it.
Though the pits may have appeared first in Egypt, I agree that the fabrication of Egyptian aes may have been different from elsewhere.  Years ago, in his AGRC pages, Doug Smith thought so, too (in fact, I got the idea from him).  In any case, I agree that the pits in Thrace and Moesia Inferior have nothing to do with value and everything to do with fabrication.  It surely is significant that the Ptolemaic coins are perfectly round, and the others are not.
The addresses are: http://dougsmith.ancients.info/pit.html and http://dougsmith.ancients.info/fabric.html.
Pat L.
BTW, Automan, that is one beautiful Gordian.
P.S. It just occurred to me that I cannot recall seeing the rings on a reverse.  Can anyone show a reverse with the rings?

[Akropolis]

P.S. It just occurred to me that I cannot recall seeing the rings on a reverse.  Can anyone show a reverse with the rings?

Here is one with a few small rings on the reverse.
I hope the image is not too wide for FORVM.
PeteB

[Akropolis]

Here's the reverse alone.
PeteB

[slokind]

Thanks!  That's enough, IMO.  I mean, the rings seem to have been produced in exactly the same way, not as if the rings were associated solely with the way the obverse was treated.  And even better, obv and rev rings on the same coin.  Pat

[Bacchus]

P.S. It just occurred to me that I cannot recall seeing the rings on a reverse.  Can anyone show a reverse with the rings?

Here is one with a few small rings on the reverse.
I hope the image is not too wide for FORVM.
PeteB

Very nice coin too, by the way !
MaLcolm