Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Celtic, Barbaric & Tribal Imitative Coins Discussion Forum

Celtic Coin of the Day

(1/3) > >>

Cleisthenes:
There are so many wonderful Celtic coins (duh!).  Here is one that I'd love to acquire:

CELTIC BRITAIN, Cunobeline, 10-20 AD. Rose Gold Stater (5.41 gm) of Camulodunum. Classic type. Grain-ear / Celticized horse. S.286. vArd.2010v. aXF, rev. die break.

Jim

ADMIN NOTE:

SEE CELTIC AND OTHER TRIBAL COINS FOR SALE IN THE FORM CONSIGNMENT SHOP: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=800

Kernos:
Good idea Jim! Here is my contribution for day 2:

This coin is de La Tour 7187-7186, cf 7191, attributed by him to the Caletes, The modern attribution is uncertain, though there is evidence that it is Remi (La Tour II, Castelin 305), probably Lingones, Aedui or Sequani (see Freeman and Sears Fixed Price List 12 Winter 2007, lot 7); CCBM 566-76

It is a silver quinarius, 1.80 gm, late 1st century BCE after 40 BC.

OBV: Winged head left wearing torc, ATEVLA before, dotted circle

REV: Horned bull to the right with beaded ‘mane’ and spikey tail; S-scroll above; quaterfoil below; VLATOS before, grain ear below exergual line

DLT 7191 has a pentagram below the horse and a crescent below the exergual line.

Kernos

Cleisthenes:
Kernos,

That coin is a beauty.  I'm posting the photo of a coin (once again, not in my collection :-\) that is very intriguing:

Danubian Celts, Burgenland region, AR tetradrachm, imitation of Philip II of Macedon, alterated Kroisbach type, ca. 100-50 BC, 12.45gm, 25.5mm.  Obv: Celticized male head to right with triple pearl diadem, prominent features, broken nose, and radically altered facial features (from the normal for the Kroisbach type) produced by two strikes.  Rev: Diademed horseman and prancing horse to left, horseman depicted as bust only, with hair in topknot and three trailing curls.  Cf. Göbl OTA 469/2 (single strike); cf. Lanz 743 (single strike).  EF

It is difficult to believe that the obverse device on this tetradrachm is the product of an accidental double strike.  We can determine from the striking method that must have been employed to produce the effect that the image was almost certainly the intended result of two deliberate, careful strikes.  The first strike produced a strong impression of the top half of the obverse image, and the second strike was done with the die tilted such that it produced a strong impression of the bottom half of the obverse face without interfering with the impression left by the first strike.  In addition, the second strike was done with the die rotated and placed in such a way that the back of the head was left with a natural appearance.  Also, while the flan was rotated and tilted rather radically with respect to the obverse die between the two strikes (much more so than is found in a normal accidental double strike) to produce the effects just noted, the reverse die was kept in nearly an identical position with respect to the flan during the two strikes, producing little evidence of the two strikes on the reverse image.  Finally, both the obverse and reverse devices are very well-centered on the unusual oblong flan, with the obverse image fitting the size of the flan quite well, and the reverse image positioned to take best advantage of the shape of the flan.

Certainly the highly creative Celtic celators must have experimented with new design ideas, and this may be an example of such an experiment.  It may also be the result of a coin production team's creative attempt to deal with an oblong flan or group of oblong flans with which they were presented.

Jim
 

leetoone:

--- Quote from: Cleisthenes on February 02, 2007, 08:38:43 pm ---  In addition, the second strike was done with the die rotated and placed in such a way that the back of the head was left with a natural appearance.  Also, while the flan was rotated and tilted rather radically with respect to the obverse die between the two strikes (much more so than is found in a normal accidental double strike) to produce the effects just noted, the reverse die was kept in nearly an identical position with respect to the flan during the two strikes, producing little evidence of the two strikes on the reverse image. 
--- End quote ---

Could it be that the coin flan simply got stuck in the upper die after having been struck and an afterstrike, albeit a little rotated, caused a double strike on the obverse that would not have occurred on the reverse?

Cleisthenes:
Hi Lee,

Your suggestion is very reasonable (and it would certainly suit "Ockham's Razor -- lex parsimoniae").  Maybe I'm giving the celator too much credit ;).

Cheers, Jim

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page