Andrew, you mention above that the use of "dies stolen from the
mint or misused in the
mint" was possible. This puzzles me, even though saying "is possible" is a far cry from admitting it exists.
Let's take four hypothetical fourrée coins struck under these conditions:
1: The forger acquired stolen official dies, and strikes them in
his shed. : unofficial
counterfeit.
2: The forger works in the mind; when none one is watching, he misuses the die : unofficial
counterfeit and silver saved for the mint-worker.
3. The forger works in the mind; the Quaestor/IIIVir told him so, he misuses the die: unofficial
counterfeit with big benefit for the
mint officials
4. The forger works in the mind; the
Quaestor presented him with a S.C. to misuse the die: officially condoned
counterfeit. Authorities will deny any involvement if found out.
Will you be able to look at just any fourré of these four and associate it with the right alternative? I personally don't know how I would distinguish between (2-4); for (1), maybe incompetent strike, wrong
reverse, etc, if the thief has no mint-worker background. But even such slips might appear in the regular
mint when a hammer-man is tired, borded,
still in training, ill or not careful enough. If we find the forger's workshop,
complete with the dies and a hard of fourrés, OK. But how would you tell the difference - and if you allow for mint-workers forging coins on their own, why not allow for them being ordered to do so from on high?
As regards the mechanical process: Does the triple imprinting (coin to die at the official striking, die to coin at the mechanical die-making process, die to coin for the
counterfeit?) lose specific detail at every transfer (which will not look the same as, say, die-wear or broken dies), so that you can get a
counterfeit struck from Die A' that looks immediately different from a coin struck from Die A and reveals the reasons?
Many thanks for a fascinating discussion, and I'm looking greatly forward to the Website!