Hi folks,
This is an interesting topic.
Until several years ago, I
had always assumed that
ancient coins were struck hot. However, several years ago (before I was a
Forum member), an article appeared in the
ANA's "The
Numismatist" magazine regarding this topic. In preparation for this article, they actually tested both methods. This article concluded that
ancient coins were struck cold, not hot. It also conclude that it would have been physically impossible to strike
ancient coins hot, for numerous reasons. The main reason is that it would have been extremely inefficient.
The conclusions of that article didn't sit right with me. This was before I
had internet access, so I wrote a letter (by snail mail) to the
ANA hoping that it would be published in their magazine. But they never published it. I contacted them to ask why. I spoke by phone to the editor of "The
Numismatist". I was told that they refused to publish my letter in the magazine because the Board of Directors of the
ANA strongly disagreed with my objections. They insisted that
ancient coins were struck cold, not hot.
One of the reasons I felt that
ancient coins were struck hot is that, on more than one issue, there are references to
ancient coins being struck hot. For example, there is the
Roman Republic T. Carisius issue (Cr. 464/2) and the Greek
Italy Samnium, Aesernia issue (
SNG ANS 118-123).
Here are my own examples of these 2 issues:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/meepzorp/rr_pt38.htm (third coin)
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/meepzorp/gi_samnium_aesernia.htm (second coin)
Why would the ancients have put those devices and
symbols (Vulcan, Vulcan's
cap, tongs, etc.) on
ancient coins if they weren't struck hot?
I actually raised this point in my letter to the
ANA and pointed out to them those 2 issues. However, the BOD of the
ANA dismissed it, stating that the ancients simply put those devices and
symbols on
ancient coins for entertainment purposes, and that
ancient coins weren't really struck hot.
I am not stating that I was right and the BOD of the
ANA was wrong. I am just stating that I felt at that time that the evidence wasn't conclusive enough.
By the way, otl's posts (above) are very interesting.
Meepzorp