Barmy British Barb

[PeterD]

This funny little thing piqued my curiousity so I decided to aquire it.

It's size is 16 x 11 mm and weighs a mere 0.9 gms.

The head is radiate so I assume it dates from the Gallic Empire period or the British usurpers, although there were one or two reduced folles with radiate heads later on. On the "tab", under the bust, there appears what looks like a dot in a delta. It might have been part of the inscription had the coin been large enough, but it almost looks like it has been placed there deliberately.

The reverse has what is obviously a temple - but which official type is it copying? The (near) circle of dots would have fitted on the flan had the strike been central, which seems to indicate that the size and shape were deliberate.

Any more information or theories welcome. I seem to remember seeing a similar one recently, but I can't think where.

[vic9128]

it's probably an abstract rendering of a Consecratio reverse.

below is one from Wildwinds that looks more like a building than an altar

[moonmoth]

I have two in a similar style - they are really a bit more turquoise than this photo shows, it really needs re-doing.  But you can see that one of them looks like an altar type, whereas the other is double-headed.

[Pscipio]

Neat coins, and neat flan shapes which obviously result from casting.

Lars

[Adrianus]

Yes, the interesting thing here is the strange shape of all three coins with the attached casting lugs... Oh the glory of the barbs!

[PeterD]

They do look like casting lugs, but why would they leave them attached? Kinda draws attention to the fact that they are not the real thing. And the lug of my example seems deliberately to have a letter or symbol on it.

[moonmoth]

Yes - perhaps, then, a metal token that doesn't need to be the real thing, stamped with a design that indicates it's to be used as coinage, with a die that is often larger than the flan.  These support the idea that barbarous coinage was (at least some of the time) made for local use, rather than as an attempt at forgery.

[Adrianus]

These coins certainly circulate, as previous writers have proved, very widely. They are a coinage of necessity and, as you say, we are missing the point if we concentrate solely on the fraudulent element. To return to the casting lug - the first two coins may simply be struck on irregularly shaped flans but, if you look at the third eample, the casting lug can be clearly seen to be just that. Note how the struck surface is raised from the lug which is oddly-shaped and seems to me to be part of a casting sprue. This is in fact a cast of the channel where the molten metal would have entered the mould used to cast the blank.
Regards,
Adrianus

[mauseus]

Hi,

You have to differentiate between a casting lug and a metal splash. The cast Gallic immitations tend to predate the one struck, albeit on rough flans.

The struck plated (fraudulent) Posumus coins predate the cast AE Gallics which predate the struck "barbarous radiates".

Regards,

Mauseus

[moonmoth]

Hi,

You have to differentiate between a casting lug and a metal splash. The cast Gallic immitations tend to predate the one struck, albeit on rough flans.

The struck plated (fraudulent) Posumus coins predate the cast AE Gallics which predate the struck "barbarous radiates".

Regards,

Mauseus

Well, these look to me like cast flans with an imprint struck onto them.  They don't look like cast coins, but they could still have a casting lug.  Can you expand on what you mean by a "metal splash?"

[Robert_Brenchley]

Victor's coin could have casting pits - it doesn't look particularly struck - but it's not easy to see on such a dark image.