Reverse is incuse of obverse.
Brockages result when a coin sticks in a die following striking. If the mint workers do not notice and remove it the next coin receives the impression of the coin rather than the die. The resulting impression is identical to the other side of the coin but reversed and incuse. Ubtil the late 3rd century AD. brockages showing the reverse are much less common since mint workers would be more likely to see the stuck coin in the anvil die. This turns around in the late Roman period when changes in mint practices make it more common to see reverse brockages.
inverted incuse of obverse legend and portrait.
If the workers were to notice the error, they could replace the coin in the anvil die and strike it again to restore the normal reverse. Since the flan had cooled this restriking might not be completely successful in erasing the incuse design and the final coin would be a combination of raised and incuse design. This would be a 'restruck brockage'. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN RESTRUCK BROCKAGES. It is a theory that has become quite widely held but no one has succeeded in convincing me that any particular coin is a restruck brockage rather than an example of clashed dies. While similar in appearance in some ways, the error that produced clashed die coins was quite different from that causing brockages. Clashed dies result when the dies are hammered together without a coin blank in place. The softer reverse die received a partial impression of the obverse. The result looks exactly like what we described as a restruck brockage. This student considers all such coins to be results of clashed dies. The extra work to restrike a brockage seems a lot to ask in a busy factory situation while accidental damage when a blank slipped out of place would seem quite common. The clashed die of Clodius Albinus (as Augustus from the Lugdunum mint) shown here also has a large raised metal 'blob' at 1 o'clock on the reverse. This area of the die was damaged severely with a piece broken away. It seems likely that the damage to this die was part of the same clashing that produced the incuse portions of the design but other coins from the die would be needed to prove the matter. I would appreciate hearing if anyone has seen another coin from this die (GEN LV - G COSII reverse) either pre or post damage. The die is made distinctive by the separation of the LV - G legend. The raised G was placed on the right side where it was erased by the incuse D of the clash.
UPDATE March 2000:
When I wrote the above paragraph about the importance of 'internet friends', I had no idea I was being prophetic. Another person located thousands of miles from me found another coin that is even more important in the quest for understanding the matter of clashed dies. This common coin of Constantine the Great was struck twice leaving a secondary image of the back of Constantine's head on the obverse. On the reverse we see two incuse artifacts of a die clash offset from each other by the same amount as the doubling on the obverse. These indicate that the reverse die was damaged by a (single) clash which was transfered to the coin twice with the double striking. Red arrows point out the obverse back of head and the incuse chin on the reverse. The striking of this coin was extremely heavy resulting in the broad spread flan that curled around the edge of the reverse die (upper left). This striking certainly would have erased the incuse of a brockage but, instead, the second strike duplicated the incuse proving the damage was part of the reverse die.
The question has been asked why the damage resulting from a die clash is always on the reverse and why the obverse was not similarly damaged. My first thought is that the reverse die was made of softer material incapable of marking the harder obverse. Whether this means the reverse was bronze and the obverse iron or whether the reverse was less fully hardened by heat is not clear. Furhter there is the question whether this difference was intentional or simply sign of the technological limit to the hardening process at the then current state of the art. I would love to see a coin showing obverse incuse from a clash. If it exists, it would open another new set of questions requiring even more study. The more we learn, the more we find we do not know.
Thanks again to the four numismatists from three countries that contributed coins to this study. Without the internet and the communications between persons of like interests that it facilitates, the bits of information provided by these coins never could have come together.
|Again thanks to an Internet friend who traded me this coin, I now must admit that there is such a thing as a restruck brockage. This AE2 of Magnentius at first glance appears to be a flip over double strike. The obverse shows a clear portrait bust and a good portion of the reverse design so the coin received two strikes from the dies and flipped over between strikes. Flipover double strikes are not uncommon. What makes this coin special is that the first strike was a reverse brockage. After one strike the coin had two reverses - one normal and one incuse. It then flipped over (intentionally by a mint worker or accidentally???) and was struck again producing a normal obverse on what had been a normal reverse and a normal reverse on what was the incuse reverse. The enlarged image at the left shows some details of the VOT / V / MVLT / X side by side with the normal on the left and the reversed incuse on the right. The coin is a bit of a mess but the longer you look at it the more details from both strikes become apparent. I said that I did not believe in the existence of a restruck brockage but this coin does appear to be one. I was wrong!|
This page is accessed from several places on this site.
Use the Back button on your browser to return.
Back to Main page
© 1997, 2000, 2012 Doug Smith