hi all,
OK,
we kind-of got side-tracked, but
curtis was onto me anyway
he was right about the double-striking.
in fact, in hand, there is even evidence of triple-striking on the
reverse.
i was looking for someone to say why there is evidence of triple-striking on the
reverse, and it does not appear to be any major evidence of double-striking on the
obverse.
as you know, coins were struck by hammer, with the
obverse (in most cases) fixed in an anvil/vice, and the
reverse die likely held by tongs. the romantic in me likes to think when the slave initially struck the coin, the force was enough to seat (lock-in) the
obverse side, but the slave picked up the
reverse die to look at it, and see if the
reverse impression was 'good enough'. for this coin he decided it needed another whack, so he placed the die back in place (but imperceptidly it was slightly off) and whacked it again. for the case of this coin he repeated the process one more time. the resulk was a 'rounding' of the
reverse legend what was i trying to illustrate...? this illustrates a coin that has evidence of triple-striking on the
reverse, but looks like only a single-strike on the
obverse. previous to thinking about this in-depth, and doing some research i could not figure how triple-striking on only one
side was possible.
my comment was, it is sure to bad the coin has evidence of double/striking on the
reverse, or based on the lovely
flan and the
obverse centering and striking, it would be a very nice coin indeed.
jim hauck