beveled edges

[Callimachus]

The flans of some Ionian and Aeolian second-century BC tetradrachms have beveled edges on the obverses.  In his booklet Ancient Methods of Coining, George F. Hill suggests that this beveling is a result of hammering old coins to obliterate the original designs before new designs were struck on the flan.  In a footnote he discusses a 1906 article by a fellow named Dressel who believed “the hammering on these … coins was (1) done only on the obverse side (which is clearly contradicted by the coins themselves) and (2) was done after striking (which appears to me to be unproven and unlikely).”

I have four coins in my collection that show beveled edges on the obverse.  On three of them, this beveling does not go all the way around the obverse.  Where the beveling crosses part of the obverse design, that part of the design is pretty much obliterated. On the reverse side of the coin, that part of the reverse design under the beveling appears to be pounded flat (or not “struck up”) but is still visible.  As an example I’ve posted a picture of a tetradrachm from Magnesia.  On the obverse, the bow and quiver as well as the bottom of the bust are pretty much obliterated by the beveling.  On the reverse the wreath is flattened along the bottom and left side.

On one of my coins the beveled edge goes completely around the obverse but is barely visible on the reverse.  The designs on both sides are completely within the non-beveled area and do not show signs of obliterating or flattening.  The flan of this coin is very broad (38 mm at its widest), thin, and concave on the reverse.  It is an Alexander tetradrachm from Kyme, and a picture of it is also posted.

From examining the four coins I have, I must admit that Dressel’s view has a lot going for it  -- at least as much of it as Hill presents in his footnote.  However, I also know it is dangerous to generalize from only four coins.  Hill probably wrote this booklet about 80 years ago since the latest footnote reference is from the 1920s.  What is the current thinking on the cause and purpose of these beveled edges?  If hammering old coins to re-use the flans was a common practice, why don’t more coins from different areas and time periods look like this?  Thank you for your responses.

[dougsmit]

I have always assumed that this was caused by the flans being prepared by pouring molten metal in a shallow cup indention in a flat surface.  The same 'look' is seen on Alexandrian drachms of the Roman period.  Doing this would weaken the edges of the reverse since there would be reduced pressure to drive metal into the dies where the flan was thin.  Using this type flan would require considerable care in alignment to keep it from looking odd or, better yet, a cup shaped die like we see from the Macedon under Rome Artemis/club coins.

from my fabric page http://dougsmith.ancients.info/fabric.html:

[PtolemAE]

magnesia, kyme, myrina, and smyrna (and maybe more) stephanophoric tetradrachms all seem to show this flan form.  it has occurred to me that these flans actually looked like plano-convex lenses prior to striking with a (obverse) die somewhat smaller (in diameter) than the flan.  the result would be a flattened obverse where the die hit the raised metal and the rest of the outer edge looking like it was 'bevelled' or hammered, when it's merely the result of not being the struck part of the preiously convex surface.  the portraits on these stephanophoric types are almost always high relief and great detail, consistent with the metal itself having been raised up in a mound prior to strike.  the reverses almost always have some weak spots, consistent with having been planar and subject to some unevennes of detail in striking esp. if the reverse design has a larger diameter than the obverse one so that die pressure on the reverse isn't met with pressure from above all the way out to the edge.

there are a lot of ancient coins that exhibit pronounced bevelling.  it's quite common on Ptolemaic bronzes and in the same 'sense' (obverse flat-struck area smaller than reverse), though the bevelling is more steep and appears to be caused by different manufacturing method than the big-flan silver coins.   the Roman coin you show from Alexandria may reprise the long-extant method of Egyptians coin makers for producing bevelled flans.

Many other coins have a pronounced 'cupped' reverse and 'flat' obverse, as if the reverse die were not flat but carved into a surface with something of a positive (convex) radius of curvature.  i've examined a number of larger Syracuse bronzes from 3rd C. BC and they almost all have the 'concave' reverse and the result is that they appear to have a 'bevelled' edge, but opposite to the sense of Ptolemaic bronzes.  and on the Ptolemaic coins the steeply bevelled ege appears to be 'manufactured' on the flan, not due to the strike.  in contrast, the Syracusan bronzes seem struck with a die pair that is larger for the obverse than for the reverse, pushing the coin down around the edges of the (smaller) reverse die and 'cupping' it - resulting in the obverse appearing larger in diameter than the reverse.  The radius of curvature on the (concave) reverse is fairly consistent (about 12-15cm) for a bunch of coins i examined.

I believe these kinds of observations can help us learn and eventually infer just how coins were made in different empires and time periods and may help tie certain groups together in time and location.  The case of the stephanophoric tetradrachms from a variety of locations is right on the point.  The coin manufacturing technologists of the time were nothing if not brilliantly clever.

PtolemAE

[Joe Sermarini]

I have always assumed that this was caused by the flans being prepared by pouring molten metal in a shallow cup indention in a flat surface...

I am confident Doug is correct for for many types, including Roman Alexandria coins in the period illustrated above, many Judaean coins and others. 

I also believe George F. Hill is correct that the 2nd century tetradrachms discussed above were made by hammering older coins.  The hammering does appear to have been mostly if not entirely on the obverse side.  I believe the hammering was done before striking.     

[Robert_Brenchley]

Prutot, apart from those of Mattathias Antigonos, were of this form, and Meshorer discusses flan moulds which have been found (TJC pp50-51). They were cast between two stone slabs, one with a smooth face, the other with indentations to form the flan strips. The top of the mould was closed off by the flat slab during casting.