Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Byzantine Coins Discussion Forum
Engraving/strike detail - intended or not?
Paul B11:
Hello. I have noticed this trident shape on the ends of many of my Byzantine coins. In this case I might expect not be surprised the cross has so much detail. But the I's? Across different coins it seems somewhat random.
My question is whether this was intended by the engraver, some sort of effect that made engraving easier or was an accidental result, some vestiage of the striking process (or wear on the die), etc. Or was it fully intended by engravers?
Please forgive if this has been discussed. I love Byz coins for the somewhat randomness of exquisite detail and artwork on some coins and very lazy/shabby work on others. And sometimes both on one coin!
Thanks...
Paul B11:
Here is another than it even more obvious. Almost everywhere on the coin whether it makes sense or not.
Same emperor/type (Justin II and Sofia Half Follis) but from Nicomedia instead of Constantinople this time.
Molinari:
I think fully intended by the engravers. Adds flare!
Paul B11:
I guess so. Hammering a coin is not nano-lithography. I can't think of any other way that would be precise.
I just find it so odd that some engravers were making 16 sided polygons out of just the I in ANNO XII and so forth. Meanwhile the huge K is imbalanced. And other die makers are mailing it in with expanded retrograde legends.
Curtis JJ:
--- Quote from: Molinari on March 11, 2023, 04:23:43 pm ---I think fully intended by the engravers. Adds flare!
--- End quote ---
Agree about the fully intended... Decorative purpose is a good explanation. It also fits the general "Byzantine" principle of putting crosses everywhere possible.
My question: Do we see this in any other kind of "Byzantine" inscriptions? Whether Latin or Greek, in stone or papyri or mosaic or graffiti...? I don't think I've seen them elsewhere, but I don't have much background in Classics or Archaeology, so it wouldn't be a surprise if I'd missed it.
I've wondered about it before. I've assumed it may have been a combination of artistic flourish (they look like little crosses, which may have appealed, and would explain why the tradition took off then, not earlier), and the kind of guiding marks that engravers use to trace the width & distances of the letters.
You can see similar features on both of my Folles below. On the Anastasius, it's especially on the obverse legend (...ANA ... IVS...). On the Maurice Tiberius, the reverse characters (including the Large M, the cross, and monogram) have similar features all over. In fact, they're much less subtle, and have almost become primary features of the lettering. (Sorry, couldn't get better detail, using the auction photos here: NAC 46, 1184 [LINK] & CNG EA 494, 453 [LINK]. A bit hard to see, but a number of the characters on the reverse of my ex-Forum (SH36361) Justinian Follis have the same feature: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?zpg=47237
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version