Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)  (Read 1042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« on: October 31, 2021, 10:18:50 am »
How would you attribute this coin? Double strike, probably unlisted in RIC (or damaged). But where it should be placed?

Any suggestions?
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2021, 12:26:06 pm »
In the earlier crescent issue mars is nude, so this must belong to the star issue. I can't see how the double-strike could have eliminated the star, so it was either omitted from the die, or possibly clogged die although there's no sign of that being the case.

RIC does note a couple of specimens from this issue with missing stars (GENIO - RIC 164b footnote, SOLI - RIC 167b footnote). I've only seen one of each (my Sol, below) so I'd say they are mint errors rather than a separate issue (unlike the earlier no-crescent coins, distinguishable by style, as well Sol with SOLE legend, which do seem to be a separate issue).

So, I'd guess a missing star mint error - RIC 163b variant, unless someone can suggest how the double strike could have obliterated the star.

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2021, 02:32:15 pm »
When you look carefully there appears to be signs of a brockage in the reverse left field - you can see the outline of the nose clearly. 

That would be about where the star would be right??

It is possible that the brockage would depress the surface of the field enough to mean that the metal was unable to flow into the star.....

SC


SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2021, 04:45:07 pm »
Could be ! So then it seems it was struck three times - once with coin stuck to upper die to form the brockage, then twice more after it fell off.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2021, 08:47:48 pm »
Brockage, then double-strike - it's a nice explanation. So RIC VI ANTIOCHIA 163b with unlisted officina and mint error.

Thank you for your help.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2021, 09:05:30 pm »
Really great coin.  i never would have seen the brockage if I hadn't enlarged the photo to look for signs of the star.  Makes you wonder how many others have been missed.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2021, 10:18:23 am »
I follow Doug Smith in thinking that all apparent "restruck brockages" are in fact the result of clashed dies.

This is proved by the occurrence of identical "restruck brockages": two coins struck from the same rev. die that was damaged by die clashing.
Curtis Clay

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2021, 11:01:47 am »
Of course it's possible (double struck with die-clash damaged die), but then I think we'd need to resort to one of the other explanations for the missing star. In this case the coin is generally well struck up, so there doesn't appear to have been too much damage from a possible die clash other than the bust impression. It seems that generally the detail in the bust-damaged area should actually be better preserved than in the surrounding areas which would have absorbed the brunt of the clash impact.

On the other hand, if it was a brockage that was subsequently double struck, then it would have been very unlucky for just the star to have been lost, since adjacent detail such as the base of the spear is still very clear. There is some sort of blob just above the base of the spear that could be some vestige of the star, I suppose.

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2021, 05:02:29 pm »
The faintness of the incuse head is certainly consistent with a die clash.  Most brockages I have seen are deeper. 

In any event, the two factors - the incuse head and the off-set "echo" of the legend - are unrelated.  One a die clash or brockage, the other a multiple strike with lateral slippage.

I also agree that such a scenario makes the lack of star more likely to be either completely missing from the die, although a filled die remains a slight possibility. 

SC

PS I really wish I had an anvil and dies to experiment with.....
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2021, 09:56:36 am »
I just came across another example of what appears to be a restruck brockage (but no double strike on this one).

Hopefully my diagrams are self-explanatory of what we (or at least I) would expect to see on various types of error coins, although I agree with Shawn that it sure would be nice to be able to do some experimental archaeology and see how these typically turn out in practice.

So, just to explain my diagrams...

Here's the normal situation with an undamaged set of dies striking a coin. The obverse die is on bottom, as was the custom, and of course has the emperor's bust on it, meaning there would be a large central depression on the die, which is what I'm showing here. The reverse designs would of course be quite varied, with design elements generally much more spread across the flan, which is what I'm depicting here with the saw-tooth reverse die.

So now we have the two relevant types of error, brockages and die clashes...

With a brockage we've got a flan stuck to one of the dies, typically the upper (reverse) one, meaning that the next flan's upper surface will be struck with obverse of the stuck coin rather than the reverse die. This results in the next coin having a normal obverse, but a reverse having an incuse version of the obverse, which is what I'm depicting here. The raised portion of flan #2's bottom surface is the normal head, and the sunken portion of its top surface is the incuse head.

(cont)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2021, 09:57:37 am »
Now, here's the setup for a die clash. What happens here of course is that the dies first strike each other without a flan in place, meaning that the dies impact each other rather than a flan, resulting in damage to the dies. Typically this results mostly in damage to the upper (reverse) die only, with it taking an impression of the lower die. This is what I'm depicting with the red parts on the diagram.

Presumably the reason it's normally the reverse die that gets damaged is because of the asymmetry between the reverse and obverse designs ... The reverse design, being typically more spread across the flan, means that the force of the strike if fairly evenly spread across the die. The obverse design, being a head, means the the central portion of the die is always sunken and therefore the force of the strike is transmitted mostly by the surrounding perimeter of the die, hence the pressure per unit area will be greatest in this region.

We can see from the diagram what this might be expected to look like. The central portion of the reverse die is spared, but the perimiter is damaged, with the center-perimiter border being defined by the shape of the bust on the obverse die. When a coin is now struck with these damaged dies it might be expected to look like the one in the diagram, with the central portion of the reverse looking normal, a center-perimeter border defined by an incuse impression of the bust, and a perimeter that may have flattened detail relative to the center.

Of couse this is only the general case, but the same rationale would apply to other situations where maybe there's only a small bust or a large central design (sunken on die) on the reverse die (therefore causing die clash damage more to the obverse die rather than reverse).

(cont)

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2021, 09:58:46 am »
Now the interesting case of the Maximinus II coin under discussion above, where one possible explanation is a brockage that was restruck after the stuck upper coin had fallen off. This must have happened on occasion - we occasionally see just about every conceivable type of production error that could occur, including flans that were struck at least three times, sometimes even flipping between strikes

So, what would such a double struck brockage look like, in the case where the stuck coin has fallen of, and the second strike is therefore now coming from the reverse die? If we look at the brockage diagram above, and imagine flan # 2 (the brockage) now being restruck with flan # 1 out of the way, we can see that the expected result might be a coin where the obverse is normal but the reverse has reduced detail in the center due to flan already being incuse in that area, and therefore not making full contact with the reverse die.

Here's an example of what this might look like (the new coin that caused me to revisit this thread). Of course it's hard to prove that this is the explanation for this particular coin, but it seems to fit the explanation, with a central area of diminished detail as opposed to a die clash where the central area might be expected to be unaffected.

This is what's being suggested for the Maximinus II coin - that perhaps it was a restruck brockage, and this could explain the missing reverse detail (star). Of course in that case the star is the *only* thing that is missing, making this explanation more circumspect for that coin.

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2021, 08:03:08 am »
First of all, please make this into a wiki-page, or incorporate it into an existing one.  This is great stuff and should exist separately from this one thread.

When doing that I think it would be great to add more diagrams (I know I am being demanding here given it must take time for you to make them - but they are a great aid to understanding).  What I was thinking of was having diagrams for the full set of steps for each scenario.  So, for the die clash that would mean adding a diagram first showing the two dies facing with no flan, keep your image to highlight the damaged areas, then showing a post-clash one where the upper die is now worn (i.e. remove the red bits) and then show the result on the flan.  And then add diagrams (some of them recycled) for the double struck scenario.

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2021, 08:16:50 am »
Secondly, and more substantively.

I am left pondering the difference between those two last coins in terms of what detail comes through in the centre in the various scenarios.  Basically, in one we have an impression of the obverse in the reverse fields but no apparent damage to the main reverse design - Sol.  In the other there is the same impression in the reverse fields but the main design is also damaged/effected.

Now throw in the different scenario - the well-known "double-strike with flip".  I have a SOLI INVICTO COMITI I have posted before where Sol is simply two pairs of legs, one with feet down and one with feet up, joined at the waist.  Others have posted very similar examples.  No effect on the reverse from the obverse in this scenario, but it raises a related issue.

What causes a double-strike to affect some areas and not others? 
     Uneven pressure on the die due to the angle of the hammer strike? 
     Temperature differential in the flan due to uneven cooling? 
     Metallurgical differential in the flange to uneven mixing of the alloy during flan preparation? 
     Effects from the coin design itself due to the way metal flows into different depths of a die?

The reason I raise this issue here is that, for me at least, understanding this phenomenon would hep me to better understand the difference in those two brockage-related scenarios.

SC


SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2021, 08:39:24 am »
First of all, please make this into a wiki-page, or incorporate it into an existing one.  This is great stuff and should exist separately from this one thread.

I strongly agree with Shawn
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2021, 10:06:18 am »
Thanks guys. Sounds a bit like a work assignment, but I'll do it when I'm not feeling so lazy.

Offline Frans Diederik

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
  • carpe diem, vita brevis est!
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2021, 03:24:04 pm »
Then: homework for all of you: explain this uniface from Arles ???

Frans

Offline SC

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6068
    • A Handbook of Late Roman Bronze Coin Types 324-395.
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2021, 04:21:08 pm »
All of my uniface Roman coins appear to have been filed flat in antiquity.

But this appears to have been struck on the reverse given the partially raised rim.

The first guess that comes to mind is "oops I was holding the upper die upside down"? 

SC
SC
(Shawn Caza, Ottawa)

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2021, 04:32:57 pm »
Only one die and hammer.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Callimachus

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2021, 05:22:33 pm »
Then: homework for all of you: explain this uniface from Arles ???

Frans

How do you know it is from Arles?

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2021, 05:38:27 pm »
Quote
Then: homework for all of you: explain this uniface from Arles ???

The partially raised rim on the reverse seems it may been the result of impacting another flan, so one possibility would be two flans accidentally struck together, with this being the bottom one. Maybe his buddy is out there - a uniface coin with only a reverse ?!

I suppose we can't rule out it having been done intentionally, but the raised rim on the reverse does seem a bit of a clue.

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2021, 06:30:33 pm »
Quote
How do you know it is from Arles?

The bust style can often be used to identify the mint and date, and therefore also narrow down the reverse!

Offline Frans Diederik

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
  • carpe diem, vita brevis est!
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2021, 05:40:26 am »
Indeed, Heliodromus! The portrait style is so obvious Arles and most likely a Claritas reverse.
The idea of two flans being struck at the same time is indeed very likely.

Frans

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2021, 02:53:52 pm »
but the raised rim on the reverse does seem a bit of a clue.

Right!
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Maximinus, Antioch, Virtus (Mars)
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2023, 08:45:32 am »
Just revisiting this topic, since I just saw another coin from this same die-clash-damaged reverse die, so I think we can now definitively say this was multiply-struck with a die-clash-damaged die (not a brockage).

What's interesting is that this second example is also double struck, with one interesting artifact of that being that the "VAL" in the obverse legend reads "VALL"... Now, looking at the first coin we can see that it also has this "VALL", but in addition also has the partial legend behind Maximinus' head, so that coin appears to have been triple struck!

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity