Question on how the ancients made their dies

[Dk0311USMC]

So far in my coin collecting hobby and study of ancient history, I still haven't seen how exactly the ancients made the coin dies. Its understandable how a well made die can imprint so much detail on a red hot coin blank, but I'm still not sure how they got such details on a die in the first place.   I imagine they were able to mold and carve from something soft and then made a cast of some sorts, otherwise I would have no idea. 

Danny

[Lloyd Taylor]

The dies were generally carved into bronze using hardened sharp iron tools (small chisels, scrapers, etc.). Annealing techniques could then be used to harden the bronze dies after engraving but before use - this process is performed by substantially heating the material (generally until glowing) for a while and allowing it to cool. The resultant harder annealed bronze die would then stand up better to use in striking softer bronze, silver and gold.

The mystery is how the very fine detail present on the finest coins could be carved using eyesight  alone, unassisted by magnification.  There is some suggestion that a prime requirement for a celator was extreme myopia (shortsightedness). I am sure if the celator wasn't myopic at the outset, then after a few years in the job he certainly became so.

[Victor C]

There has been speculation that the celators used some sort of magnifying lens-- see "Did ancient celators use magnifying lenses?"
The Celator, Vol. 11, No. 11, November 1997, p. 40.

"Such a statement first occurs in the writings of Seneca, the Roman philosopher and politician who died in AD 65. "Letters, however small and dim, are comparatively large and distinct when seen through a glass globe filled with water."

[cmcdon0923]

There has been speculation that the celators used some sort of magnifying lens-- see "Did ancient celators use magnifying lenses?"

Certainly they were aware of the ability of a drop of water to act as a rudimentary type of magnifying "lens".

[mwilson603]

The mystery is how the very fine detail present on the finest coins could be carved using eyesight  alone, unassisted by magnification.  There is some suggestion that a prime requirement for a celator was extreme myopia (shortsightedness). I am sure if the celator wasn't myopic at the outset, then after a few years in the job he certainly became so.

I am slightly myopic, I have a prescription of -1.25 in each eye.  However, even with such a small myopia I am able to happily read the tiny serial number etched (?) into the outside portion of each of my contact lenses.  I am fairly sure that I have not seen detail smaller than that on any coin, so I don't think that the vision would be the main problem, I think keeping their hands steady to carve such tiny details into bronze would be as big an issue! 
regards
Mark

[gallienus1]

We had an interesting discussion on the possible use lenses and mirrors to cut ancient dies a few years back.

See- https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=46265.msg290611#msg290611

Best Regards,
Steve

[marcos x]

I have made my own coins, fantasy pieces of course im not a counterfeiter! ( nor from bulgaria ) )and i cut them into brass and bronze dies but i use a rotary tool. with a soft bronze it is possible to shape by hand if the die is secured much more time consuming .i think they recut the dies quite often you can smack a old die flat and completely recut quite easily.below is a picture of fantasy piece I struck by hand.
 Daedalus and his stupid son flying to close to the sun on "wings of pastrami" seinfeld fans will understand what im saying.

[Dk0311USMC]

Thanks everyone!  Whats interesting is how coins are one of the most abundant objects from antiquity, but there is still debate on how exactly they were made (at least the dies).  It would seem even difficult by todays standards to duplicate a style of die used by the ancients with even some of our modern tools.  It still amazes me the level of craftsmanship achieved in those days. 

[Randygeki(h2)]

Great topic, as well as the one linked.

What if they used lenses, from cows. It may sound silly, but Romans did have enough understanding of the eye to perform cataract surgery, so  I'm sure they had some decent understanding of the anatomy of the eye. In my AnP class, when we were dissecting a cow eye, the teacher passed around several dry cow eye lenses. The lense of a cow eye is a bit larger than a human, and even when dried, can magnify objects at close range. It wouldn't be hard to attach one to some sort of "eye piece." I can't say I believe this to be the case though , just thought I'd share a random thought lol

[daverino]

My own guess is that die making was a multi-step process. The obverse probably began with an outline of the head and the position of the letters laid out from a template or stencil. Perhaps an apprentice would do this. Then a more advanced carver would cut away further metal leaving the fine details to be performed by a master engraver. This seems more reasonable than to suppose that one individual created the whole thing from a blank piece of metal. The Romans were pretty organized and one can imagine a small assembly line of dies passing thru increasingly skilled hands to satisfy the demands of the mint.

[Lloyd Taylor]

When it comes to how the dies were mapped out, here's a clue form one of my tets....

Note the dots mapping out key design elements... probably drilled at the outset to guide the detailed engraving. That said it is very clear that mint practices differed greatly through time and geography, so one cannot generalize. The detail of the engravers approach is specific to time and place although the generalities (bronze dies carved with hardened iron tools, subsequently annealed to harden the die prior to use) remain the same.

[Lloyd Taylor]

And here's another clue to the detail of the engraving process in the mint at Damastion....


The reverse of the coin provides an insight into the die engraver’s work process. The coin appears to have been struck from an incompletely engraved reverse die, as the image of the fallen Persian warrior was not completed. The face and abdomen of the warrior were carved from the die in a most preliminary outline, apparently pending completion of the image by addition of detail in these areas, as evidenced on other examples of the type. Tool marks, linear striations, on these preliminary engraved areas are evident on the coin and suggest that the initial outline was scoured from the die in a shallow impression, which was then deepened and smoothed as details were added in the engraving process. The same appears to be the case for the incomplete frontal facial features of the mounted warrior.  It appears that the die was still work in progress when put into service. The incomplete engraving of the reverse of the coin along with factors found on other examples of the issue, including blundered legends, poor artistry and irregular flans, are all suggestive of a mint under considerable pressure to produce a voluminous coinage.

For more background on the coin https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=50356.0

[daverino]

No doubt that habits of production varied from mint to mint. I got into hot water by suggesting that you could find die matches by 'pattern recognition'.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=74629.msg469245#msg469245

 I was finding that the relative positions of letters and key points on the bust outline (tip of nose, point of chin etc) were exactly the same for a number of Constantius I quarter follis (RIC 169) types. On further reflection it turned out that the dies were different but cut to very precisely the same pattern. I examined about 10 examples that were published on the internet and found they were of only two types (patterns). There are presumably others but my investigation got no further.

I'm not sure how the initial pattern might have been laid out. Perhaps drilling holes to a specific depth would have been a guide to further cutting.

Regards, Dave