Kraay, on test cuts, question

[Andrew McCabe]

A question for owl lovers and Greek specialists in general:

C.M. Kraay, in Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley, 1976, said:

[Test cuts] are savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type or legend. Their purpose was evidently the purely practical one of determining whether the coin was made of solid silver throughout; the survival of numerous plated coins (with copper cores) proves that the precaution was necessary. Finds show that such tests were normally performed outside the Greek world, when the coins ceased to be treated as the currency of individual states and had become so much bullion to be subdivided as required… Repeated cuts probably represent tests by successive owners; old cuts quickly became tarnished and dirty so that the colour of the metal could no longer be seen, and forgers may have been capable of producing plated forgeries with their flans already convincingly cut.

van Alfen contradicts Kraay, in The “Owls” from the 1989 Syria hoard, with a Review of Pre-Macdedonian Coinage in Egypt, American Numismatic Society, AJN 2002, and showed that cuts were carefully applied to specific parts of the design in a way that could only be considered as marking rather than as testing.

Wartenberg and Kagan reinforce the contradiction in Some comments on a new hoard from the Balkan area, in Essays Rider, 1999, showing that in a different environment, cuts on Balkan imitations were also marked and not tested by cuts; once again there is method shown to the application of the cuts which contradicts Kraay.

Buxton made much the same points in "The Northern Syria 2007 Hoard of Athenian Owls: Behavioral Aspects", and confirms the cuts are for anything except testing, but are in fact marking.

My question: is there any evidence at all to support Kraay's statement? I don't have Kraay's book but I'm sure he must have made the statement based on some facts; all I see are contradictions by van Alfen, Wartenberg, Kagan and Buxton.

[Lloyd Taylor]

[Test cuts] are savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type or legend. .......

My question: is there any evidence at all to support Kraay's statement? I don't have Kraay's book but I'm sure he must have made the statement based on some facts; all I see are contradictions by van Alfen, Wartenberg, Kagan and Buxton.

Test cuts are exactly as Kraay says.  

The cuts analysed by Van Alfen, Wartenberg etc are not test cuts, but rather administrative control marks/cuts that superficially resemble test cuts, but were appplied for purposes other than for testing for silver content.

Not everything that looks like a test cut is in fact a cut made with the objective of testing for the presence of a subaerate core! Different regions, different administrations and different purposes.... not all cuts are test cuts! So no contradiction at all amongst these different workers/studies.

Many multiply cut coins with brutal random as opposed to careful non random cuts support Kraay's hypothesis for test cuts as opposed to administrative process cuts.

[Andrew McCabe]

[Test cuts] are savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type or legend. .......

My question: is there any evidence at all to support Kraay's statement? I don't have Kraay's book but I'm sure he must have made the statement based on some facts; all I see are contradictions by van Alfen, Wartenberg, Kagan and Buxton.

Test cuts are exactly as Kray says.  

The cuts analysed by Van Alfen, Wartenberg etc are not test cuts, but rather administrative control marks/cuts that superficially resemble test cuts, but were appplied for purposes other than for testing for silver content.

Not everything that looks like a test cut is in fact a cut made with the objective of testing for the presence of a subaerate core! Different regions, different administrations and different purposes.... not all cuts are test cuts! So no contradiction at all amongst these different workers/studies.

Lloyd

Thanks - but it is not a direct answer to my question. I've read widely about the administrative cuts discussed by van Alfen et al. But I don't know what are the "test cuts" that Kraay refers to. If I am to believe van Alfen et al (which I do, they all argue persuasively), then I'm not aware of any test cuts on Greek coins that follow the Kraay model. It is the latter which I am seeking examples of - "savage incisions inflicted with a chisel with no regard for type or legend. Their purpose was evidently the purely practical one of determining whether the coin was made of solid silver throughout". I've seen no examples, All the cuts I've seen are applied with care and purpose, whether those to owls in Syria or those to Phillip imitations in the Balkans. Where might I find some real, savage, mutilating, demonetising test cuts on Greek coins? Do they exist?

[djmacdo]

I think some test cuts are applied with some consistency as to location, for a purely practical reason.  For example, many late Thasian tetradrachms of the Head of Dionysos/Standing Herakles type are test cut on the reverse right between Herakles' legs--not, I think, to emasculate Herakles, but because the legs helped keep the chisel from slipping.  So, it may not be easy to distinguish test cutting from what has been termed administrative marking--but what, in any event, could such administrative marking be, other than regularly applied test cutting, the regularity of it implying some authority?

[Lloyd Taylor]

..........Where might I find some real, savage, mutilating, demonetising test cuts on Greek coins? Do they exist?

A pretty brutally cut example that would appear to meet Kraay's description in the first image.

This one from Molinari's gallery is not too far behind in terms of the brutality of one cuts that would likely make it unacceptable in circulation.... https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-78478

One single cut coin from my gallery that hardly qualifies as delicate..... https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-98077 although probably insufficient to demonetise it. It was nevertheless hoarded immediately after the cut as indicated by the fresh unworn edges of the cut.  In this case, possibly removed from circulation and cut to test for silver immediately prior to being placed in a hoard. ... no one wants to hoard valueless junk!

And best to revisit where it all started... the Athenian Agora excavations of test cut fouree's which were ceromonially disposed of in a religious precinct.  Most of these were cut via a reverse cut to the head of the owl... between the eyes so to speak... and rarely are such cuts delicate, despite being non-random.  The reason for this specific cut is apparent... it was not to the Goddess Athena herself thus avoiding profanity, while the head of the owl was amongst the thickest parts of the coin near an edge and thus providing a representative test. Sometimes, close examination of such cuts will often reveal a two stage process, with a gentle precursor cut and then a truly damaging blow in the case of the presence a subaerate core. I suggest that the latter imay be aimed at clearly and unequivocally demonetzing the the coin.  Of course the argument might be made that the truly damaging cuts are made to clearly demonetize a coin, but the fact that such are also found on "good" coins of pure silver suggests that these were being used as little more than bullion, comparable to hack silver... a pointer to their ending up in frontier areas of the Greek world by the time the truly brutal cuts were applied over multiple gentler cuts.

Two subaerate fourees from the Forvm sold inventory follow.... the links provide access to supporting notes. Interesting that one of these is multiply cut... in this case possibly to unequivocally expose the coin  for what it is and thus remove the risk of it re-entering circulation, or was it that they just weren't sure of the subaerate core on the first couple of gentle cuts?.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=17096q00.jpg&vpar=66&zpg=16075&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=63547q00.jpg&vpar=66&zpg=74943&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins2/

[Carausius]

Andrew:

I have Kraay's book. It refers the reader to a plate photo of an Aigina stater with a cut through the turtle's shell. There are no other citations or footnotes (except for the one explanatory footnote that you also quoted) to support the quoted paragraph.

[Andrew McCabe]

Thanks both to Lloyd and Carausius.

My reading of the authors I cited is that the Athenian plated coins with the large cuts were cut after being determined to be plated (hence these are not test cuts), and Kraay specifically refers to non-Greek environments in any event; also indications from the 375 BC Athenian currency decree and other sources down to Roman times, uncut coins were much preferred if not essential in Greece itself, hence such cutting could not have taken place in Greece (except to demonetise worthless plated coins, which is not the same as testing); the various Levantine and Balkan cut coins are explained by the 'marking' system described by Robinson, van Alfen, Buxton, Wartenberg, Kagan; the Roman descriptions of testing for coins never involve large cuts as an actual test. It seems you don't need to chop through a coin to determine whether it is plated (correct) so, are any of these really test cuts? The plated coin chops are, to reiterate what I read, demonetisation cuts (after a coin was tested via other means). Perhaps what I've read was incorrect, so then correct me. The multiple cut owl shown above seems a typical bureaucratic cut - with the cut as usual placed bang between the owl's eyes, and with the intent of marking, not testing.

So. thus far, apart from the Aegina cut stater, which I'm not yet certain matches with what Kraay describes (cuts made in non-Greek circumstances, with the purpose of testing only, and with no bureaucratic purpose), I'm not sure I've ever seen an actual coin that matches the circumstances which Kraay actually describes.

Perhaps the single semi-destroyed tetradrachm in Gitler's hacksilber hoard here meets the definition:
http://academia.edu/362347/H._Gitler_A_Hacksilber_and_Cut_Athenian_Tetradrachm_Hoard_from_the_Environs_of_Samaria_Late_Fourth_Century_BCE_Israel_Numismatic_Research_1_2006_pp._5-14

I'm pursuing this to perhaps an absurd degree as it does seem that the word "test cut" is a general misnomer, with no clear examples of cuts that one could say were done with the main purpose of testing (rather than main purposes of demonetising, destroying, marking, signalling, or whatever else). I've seen no coin where one could say "this was probably cut  for the sole purpose of checking whether or not it was made of good silver, and for no other bureaucratic reason". It's better to flush it out through discussion now, if possible. If test cuts (with no other primary or secondary purpose than testing) don't actually exist, then let's debate it.

I'm writing up a hoard at present, which has cuts exactly as Kraay describes - completely random and violent, rendering the coins completely unfit for circulation. These are Roman coins. I've still never seen a test cut of the type Kraay describes on a Greek coin.

[Andrew McCabe]

I attach pictures of four coins in my group, it may illuminate my question. These coins look much what Kraay described, but not what are pictured above (cuts made with care and to specific places). It's unusual, in my recollection, to see Roman denarii cut like this. Or, indeed, Greek coins.

[Lloyd Taylor]

I attach pictures of four coins in my group, it may illuminate my question. These coins look much what Kraay described, but not what are pictured above (cuts made with care and to specific places). It's unusual, in my recollection, to see Roman denarii cut like this. Or, indeed, Greek coins.

In my opinion it looks more like a case of intentional defacement than the sort of practice described by Kraay.  Somone didn't like the Romans, but liked their silver!

[JBF]

The Asyut hoard is often given as an example of a hoard were the coins are all parts or test-cutted (Egypt).  It is an important hoard of archaic silver.  Since the coins are all test cutted or partial (maybe also scrap), and since it is Egypt, it is generally thought to be bullion maybe for some kind of silver worker.

I seem to remember an example of a debased coin or fourre that had a test cut and _then_ had silver plating _over_ the test cut in order to fool people.  I think I read it in Michael Marotta's article in the Celator which discussed Diogenes the Cynic and his blunder of interpreting literally the Delphic oracle's command "counterfeit the currency."  Diogenes got run out of Sinope for his antics at the mint.  Again, I am not sure about the details of this story, but the above information might be enough for you to track it down (don't take _my_ word for it).

Remember that Kraay was one of the editors of "An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards," so he's drawing on that background (I like it, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, it just a list of hoards and what, rather vaguely sometimes, was found in them.  I don't think that Kraay would necessarily have a problem with others arguing that in _specific_ areas (or particular hoards) it is not test cuts (warning double negative).  Kraay is writing a general book, and he may be painting with a broad brush.  A test cut is "savage" in that it is deep into the metal to expose the inside, but the goal is not mutilation, but rather to test content.  I don't know about "demonitization."  The types are one way to know that the silver was good, a test cut was another.

Kraay talks about Athens forcibly making other cities use owls and outlawing their "allies" having silver coinage.  Therefore, so _some_ of the Athenian tetradrachms might be mutilations instead.  But, that is just a conjecture on my part.

[bpmurphy]

I am not convinced that test cuts were ever used solely as a method to determine if a coin was silver or a fourrée and I don't think a test cut was ever used on a coin that was intended to circulate again. A test cut would have obviously identified a fourrée , but that doesn't mean the test cut was applied to make such an identification.

Reasons:

1 - If fourrées were such a huge problem, I would expect to see a greater number of coins with test cuts. Also, fourrées can normally be detected by weight, so a simple balance scale would have been just as quick and less destructive. Since weight is normally a pretty good indicator, the need for test cutting would only apply to coins of marginal weight, yet we find many full weight coins that are test cut for no real apparent reason. I think the system of banker's marks was the preferred method to identify a coin that had been checked for metal content (ie. weight).
2 - In general, test cut coins didn't circulate after being cut. I've handled 1000's of coins with test cuts and most test cuts show very little wear (the cut, not the coin itself). Most still retain fresh metal inside the cut and the edges of the cut are almost always still sharp. Furthermore, you don't usually find mixed hoards of test cut and not cut coins. Test cut coins are usually found in hoards with other test cut coins suggesting they didn't continue to circulate along side other non cut coins. Furthermore, looking at Coin Hoards and other site finds, you don't usually see test cut coins found as single finds. Test cut coins weren't lost at the market because they weren't in general circulation.
3 - Test cuts often times appear repeatedly in the same place on similar coins. Owls often times between the owls eyes or across the owl's back. Sinope drachms, almost always on the edge, Bactrian Staters on the back of the head (see this discussion https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=52033.0) etc... If I'm a banker trying to determine a coins authenticity and nothing else, I don't care where I cut it as long as I can do it quickly and efficiently. If I have 5000 coins to check a day, I'm not going to take the time to line up my chisel between the owls eyes over and over again. The fact that the cuts tend to appear in the same locations over and over suggests that there was another reason for the cut besides just checking the metal content.
4. What I don't know is how many test cut hoards are found within say 50 miles proximity to the place the coins were originally issued, or are most test cut coins found far from their place of issue?


I don't think coins were always test cut for the same reasons so what might be true on coins from Athens may not be true for coins from Sinope and may be completely different than Republican coins. I agree with Lloyd that not all marks that look like test cuts are actually test cuts. I think test cutting just to check a coins metal content was seldom the only reason for the test cut. I think the fact that the cuts tend to appear in the same location on the same coin indicates perhaps a political or administrative reason for the test cut, not a metallurgical one. I think in most instances test cut coins were no longer used as coins after being cut, either because the cut acted as a method of demonetization or they were no longer in an area where they would be accepted as a coins.

Barry Murphy

[paparoupa]

I don't think coins were always test cut for the same reasons so what might be true on coins from Athens may not be true for coins from Sinope and may be completely different than Republican coins. I agree with Lloyd that not all marks that look like test cuts are actually test cuts. I think test cutting just to check a coins metal content was seldom the only reason for the test cut. I think the fact that the cuts tend to appear in the same location on the same coin indicates perhaps a political or administrative reason for the test cut, not a metallurgical one. I think in most instances test cut coins were no longer used as coins after being cut, either because the cut acted as a method of demonetization or they were no longer in an area where they would be accepted as a coins.

Barry Murphy

I agree that they had more sophisticated and non-invasive methods for determining the fakes e.g. the lydian stone for the gold alloys. The test cuts could be something like a mark for a batch of coins for reasons like:

1. Taking them out of circulation
2. Property of a temple; if sb stole them, then they could be recognised as stolen. The owls had no serial numbers :-)
3. Change of value- from 4 drachma to less. This was done in bank-notes in the modern world deleting zeros
4. To mark taxes from the league cities.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Discussion of Baktrian AV stater cuts that clearly are not test cuts  ... https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=52033.0

[Andrew McCabe]

I am not convinced that test cuts were ever used solely as a method to determine if a coin was silver or a fourrée and I don't think a test cut was ever used on a coin that was intended to circulate again.

I agree with this, and with the logic that Barry lays out. The paper I'm writing says more or less as much. The coins I'm looking at seem to be converted into Hacksilber, probably in Spain, by the act of cutting. They are incredibly heavy - there are some 40 denarii that weigh 4.4 grams on average, and anyone who knows Republican silver knows that's very odd indeed. Many of the coins weight 4.6 to 4.8 grams. That's close to the heaviest know denarius; coins over 4.6 grams are probably in the top 0.001% of denarius weights in general. So, the cutting would be the end of the road in a sorting process whereby heavy coins were deliberately picked over lighter ones, and the cuts effectively demonetised them and prevented them being spent as countable coin (because, with such heavy weights, they were worth more as bullion). Presumably light coins went towards paying Roman taxes and were not generally cut up. I've since found several precedents in Spain, including Crawford commenting on some mixed hoards of coin and Hacksilber where the coins were, once again, incredibly heavy, and cut. As part of my review, I looked over all other possibilities for test coins: India, Egypt, Spain, the Balkans (I'm not talking about the trivially small bankers marks often seen on RR coins). Bactria now adds another 'non-test-cut-cut' case. I found no analogies except in Spain to my hoard group except for in Levantine Hacksilber hoards (hence my reference to Gitler). But I also found no evidence of such large cuts ever being used as the primary or sole method to determine whether a coin was silver, because in virtually all cases there were other evident purposes. Hence, when I read Kraay's statement, I asked the question. So far, it does seem that Kraay's statement, as written, is pretty much unfounded.

4. What I don't know is how many test cut hoards are found within say 50 miles proximity to the place the coins were originally issued, or are most test cut coins found far from their place of issue?

The Athenian owl cut-coins are almost all found in Syria. It seems to be (?) that such cut-up-coins were not acceptable for circulation in Greece. The Republican cut coins are from Spain. From this perspective, Kraays was 50% right about the location - it does seem to be a phenomenon seen only on exported coins. For in-country coins such as the plated coins in the Agora it seems the cuts were more to signal demonetisation than to test. And 50% wrong on the motives, which seem to vary but rarely were done solely for testing purposes.

Thanks for all the expert replies, I appreciate that those who know their Greek coins have taken the trouble to think and answer.

Maybe we should just stop calling these chisel marks 'test cuts', since it seems they are not. Perhaps "chisel cut" would be a better name, leaving the purpose for discussion on a case by case basis.

[Andrew McCabe]

Here is a Phillips tetradrachm with a mutilation cut from this thread:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=87222.msg546061#msg546061

the poster described it as either posthumous Phillip from Amphipolis, or early Celtic. Does any one have a clearer view on its identity?

[JBF]

A modern parallel to test cuts is the miner's habit in the American old West of biting into a nugget or a gold coin to test its gold.  I seem to remember that it is used for a nugget in Clint Eastwood's "Pale Rider."

[Brennos]

Hello,  this Tet is from Amphipolis  :  over  torch under horse's belly and a monogram under the raised foreleg. The monogram is hard to read but it could be a    in this case the ref is SNG ANS 794.

other Ref Le Rider 47

[Carausius]

It should be noted that many ancient Greek coins have multiple, non-intrusive "banker's" marks, similar to those found on later Roman denarii.  I have seen many examples of Aeginetan staters with multple "banker's" marks.  Assuming these banker's marks were applied during Greek times, and not centuries later (coins could circulate for a long time in antiquity), then there may have been a different purpose behind the mutilating chisel cut vs. the "banker's" mark.  I presume the banker's mark would not prohibit future circulation of the coin as a "coin", but the mutilating chisel cut....?

[Lloyd Taylor]

 I presume the banker's mark would not prohibit future circulation of the coin as a "coin", but the mutilating chisel cut....?

I think it is clear that with many if not all of these cuts, the consequence was to take them out of circulation in the monetary system. I am sure this was not a side-effect, but in fact the desired consequence. In which case it is plausible that these represent official demonetization, with the said coin to be consigned to the melting pot.

The cut(s) in such circumstance was made to ensure that the coin did not re-enter the circulating money pool before reaching the melting pot i.e. to prevent officials pilfering the cut coins and returning them in the circulating money pool. That of course would not preclude pilferage and hooarding of the cut coins for their intrinsic metal value.

Are we seeing in such hoards of material the manifestation of cut coins pilfered from the official treasury before they were melted down for striking into new coinage? ..... just a thought.... but human nature (particularly of government officials) being what it is it must be a possibility!

[JBF]

Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar, all for Kraay stand up and holler!  Yeah Kraay!

But seriously, I am not sure why cutting up coinage would demonitize it in antiquity, but with a Spanish piece of eight it would just produce spare change.  Now cutting up a tetradrachm may make one wonder if the whole thing is there, and therefore, if one (in antiquity) doesn't have scales, one might refuse it on that basis (then again in antiquity a transaction can be refused for any reason, or no reason, at all.  unlike modern transactions).  But it is the metal that is being exchanged, the type is more a matter of an official stamp on the quantity and purity of the metal in the coin.  No??  Am I correct in assuming that?

If there is official demonitization, then shouldn't there be an official who is doing the demonitization?  What evidence is there for such an official?  Now I don't have a problem with the idea of someone mutilating a coin because they don't like the imperiousness of, say, the Athenian state, and while someone might mutilate it, they probably wouldn't go to the bother of destroying it entirely or throwing it away.

Just thought of something, Grisham's law (bad money chases out good) might be used to argue that a mutilated coin is not money, because if it is money then would probably consider it "bad money" which should be spent instead of hoarded.  Still, I don't see how there would be "official" demonitization, just obsolete coins or foreign coins kept for bullion.

[Lloyd Taylor]

Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar, all for Kraay stand up and holler!  Yeah Kraay!

But seriously, I am not sure why cutting up coinage would demonitize it in antiquity, but with a Spanish piece of eight it would just produce spare change.  Now cutting up a tetradrachm may make one wonder if the whole thing is there, and therefore, if one (in antiquity) doesn't have scales, one might refuse it on that basis (then again in antiquity a transaction can be refused for any reason, or no reason, at all.  unlike modern transactions).  But it is the metal that is being exchanged, the type is more a matter of an official stamp on the quantity and purity of the metal in the coin.  No??  Am I correct in assuming that?

If there is official demonitization, then shouldn't there be an official who is doing the demonitization?  What evidence is there for such an official?  Now I don't have a problem with the idea of someone mutilating a coin because they don't like the imperiousness of, say, the Athenian state, and while someone might mutilate it, they probably wouldn't go to the bother of destroying it entirely or throwing it away.

Just thought of something, Grisham's law (bad money chases out good) might be used to argue that a mutilated coin is not money, because if it is money then would probably consider it "bad money" which should be spent instead of hoarded.  Still, I don't see how there would be "official" demonitization, just obsolete coins or foreign coins kept for bullion.

Well no doubt you are now surprised to learn of such an official... he is documented on a stela found in the Athenian Agora....text attached.  If you need the translation you can find it here http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147454.pdf

Now to put the issue in perspective.  Ancient coins, as coins today, circulated across borders. Unlike today the silver and gold ancient coins had significant intrinsic value, yet the iconography and/or epigraphy could prove offensive or repugnant to other kingdoms or cultures, distant from the source country.  Hence the basis for officials to take them out of circulation regardless of wear.  

Aside from that there was often an economic incentive to do so... consider the difference in weight of silver content between the Attic and Ptolemaic and Macedonian standards... spot the value arbitrage on a tetradachm from the former in the latter? Pretty obvious isn't it? I assume you understand the concept of arbitrage?

The subject of cuts and their rationale is far more multivariate that you suggest.  There are manifold reasons and manifold types of cuts. A single explanation is insufficient and does not respect the reality of finds, find locations and the documentary record that exists on monetary administration in different regions at different times.

Isn't ignorance bliss!

[Brennos]

Usually, the purchasing power of a coin exceeds its intrinsic value within the authority area (the issuer's benefit) so traders don't have interest to export them for international trade purpose.

The fact that a chisel cut demonetizes the coins may explain why we find them in distant countries's hoards where they are only received for their intrinsic value.

[Andrew McCabe]

I suspect that in distant countries, there was no concept of a denarius being "worth" so much silver or of so much silver having a price in denarii. Once you got any distance from the issuing authority, the original degree of seignorage was irrelevant as one can't go into the Rome market with 10 denarii and buy 12 denarii weight of silver. It's a long boat ride to Rome. So, in those distant countries, whilst the Romans may have spent the denarii as they would in Rome, the receivers only see the coins as hunks of silver. Unless there was a big demand for coin for use as taxes (in early Roman Spain, I suspect the Romans just "took" the taxes without worrying about rates or what format the silver was in), there is no added value for them being in coin format except that the coin format guarantees their quality. A 4 gram coin was worth 4 grams of silver, and silver was the real unit of currency.

[cliff_marsland]

I found this topic to be very interesting.  Quick question; about what percentage (ballpark) of Athenian Tets found AREN'T mutilated in some way?  I'm only a casual Greek collector, but someday I'd like to find an Old Style Tetradrachm that isn't marked.

I don't see this very much on Seleucid Tetradrachms for sale.  It might be explained by the coins not circulating outside the kingdom as much?

[JBF]

Lloyd, thank you for the quotation of the inscription about the official who test-cuts coins in order to figure out which are fraudulent.  I believe that that is hardly the same thing as mutilating good coinage in order to take it out of circulation.  My skepticism is regarding officials doing the later, rather than the former.
Lately I have been reading Kraay's ACGC and I find him quite knowledgable in his discussion of hoards and coins in general.  He doesn't really deal with test-cuts, mentioning them only in one paragraph (although he might mention them when discussing a particular hoard, but I haven't seen that yet).  I doubt that he would deny that there are a variety of reasons why and how coins could be marked.  At the same time, in a general book like ACGC, it is not his focus, and so is not a concern for him.  I suspect that the reason why he is used to criticize the idea of test-cuts is because he bothers to mention them at all.  A better analysis of test-cuts, mutiliations, countermarks, banker's marks, et cetera, is needed, but to use Kraay as a whipping boy misses that he didn't really try to do such an analysis in the first place.  I like Kraay because he is fun to read and is able to deduce interesting conclusions from the evidence.  But, to use him for a dscussion on test-cuts really misses what he is all about. 

Lloyd, a possible modern parallel to the refusal to cut the face on baktrian gold, is how North Koreans have to cut out pictures of their fearless leader, before using newspaper for a bird cage.  I find modern parallels particularly interesting, given that they exist in historical memory.

Lloyd, I don't know what your "ignorance is bliss!" crack is about.  There are certain kinds of "knowledge" that it is better _not_ to have, knowledge of war, pestilence, famine, rape, that kind of thing.  But, I don't think that you are talking about those kinds of things.  If you find me frustrating, then I apologize.  But, this thread started with a criticism of Kraay, by various scholars who I venture to guess, are (mis)using him for their own ends.  Maybe there is no one better for them to use, after all, everything that Kraay says (in ACGC) is limited to one short paragraph.  Yes, there are probably a lot of reasons for test-cuts, mutilations, holed coins, use in jewelry, etc; but I don't think that Kraay ever intended to comprehensively address such a topic, with _one_ paragraph.

Kind Regards,

John