I have several ancients that appear to have been hammered into a bowl shape. I know very little about ancients and was wondering why this would have been done. Has anyone ever seen this before? If needed I can try and take some picts. Thanks!
There were some coins that were struck that way, known as "scyphates". Most prominently, these coins were issued by the Byzantine empire in roughly the 11th through 14th centuries. I have no idea why they would have been struck that way.
Because they were thin coins than you could bend and break with your fingers if they were not scyphate. Putting the bend in the coin significantly strengthens it. Its debatable whether they are struck that way, or struck flat then curved, or if both methods were used. I believe at a minimum both methods were used, since I see strong evidence of punching after minting on some issues. Now, why the byzantines thought they needed to strike such thin coins, that is a different debate. Chris
From what I have read, they were intentionally struck that way with curved dies. As to why, it was because the coin would have been so small otherwise.
Just thought it was strange as I have some that are flat and then I have a few that look as if they were shaped into a bowl shape after they were minted.
Well, they would not have been much smaller than AE3's in the 4th century, so there was precedent. As to your reading, yes that was the accepted view. I talked, however, to a man who recreates these and he had evidence both in Byzantine coins and first hand experience how its easier to do after the coin is struck than during. I have seen these too, FDC scyphates with flat areas in the center of the cup side, EXACTLY the wrong spot to expect wear. It does, however, correspond perfectly to a punch being used to form the scyphate after striking. Chris Edit: Btw, the man I talked to said he tried to make schyphate dies and was never successful striking them well. However, striking flat and having an assitant punch the scyphate form he is able to strike more than one a second on a sustained output. I have some copies of his work, it is on bronze flans, and really does look identical to a byzantine scyphate, except its all new and shiny. I know this is not absolute proof, but I am willing to give a man who has physically struck these coins in the manner the ancients did for 20 years the benefit of the doubt as to his opinion on how it could have been accomplished most easily. Any ivory tower elite who has never picked up a hammer in his life can come up with whatever theory they like, but if reality contradicts them, I vote for reality.
The vast majority of Byzantine cupped coins show signs of double striking on one or both sides. I agree with the theory that the cups were done to allow thin coins with greater strength. Cupped dies would be hard to engrave with exactly matching curves but any variation would cause either the center or edges to be flatly struck with one blow. Hitting twice with a small rocking action between the two would considerably improve the area of die to flan contact. Another theory is that this system would make it hard to engrave a copy die reproducing a coin since no coin was an exact image of the die that struck it. That makes counterfeiting harder. In some periods flat coins were made with pure copper while cupped coins were alloys containing silver (billon) but about the same weight. I'm not sure anyone knows 'why' but these factors have been mentioned in the past. Please look at the example below from Alexius III: On the obverse, Christ's face is doubled to the right of the main strike. On the reverse the right figure shows an extra halo spaced about the same offset as the extra cheek on the other side. The die showed one globus crucifer between the two figures but this coin has one clear and one partial one just right of the stronger one. It you move (in your mind) the extra halo and extra globe together, you can see that the spacing is consistent. The right figure almost is climbing out of the bowl since it was struck with a blow far from straight up and down. All this strongly suggests to me the correctness of the theory that the dies were curved and intentionally double struck with a small rocking motion between the two hits. A small slip between the two makes obvious doubling as on this coin while a perfectly even rocking motion not raising the die at all might allow a more even transfer that still went around the curve of the cup. These coins are hard to find well struck on both sides. That would require the chance pairing of matching radius dies and smooth application of two strikes. That is a lot to ask on a fast paced production line. Gold/electrum coins often faired better than the billon/copper ones. I don't own any gold ones so my examples tend to be ugly (but interesting). My observation is that many coins show a better strike on the reverse suggesting the first blow stuck the flan to the top die and the slippage was all shown on the bottom (usually ruining the obverse). The Manuel I below is typical of this with great detail and legend on the reverse but severe slippage ruining the obverse (can you see Mary?). On the obverse the legend should go straight across the coin MP @V but this is off enough that the right halo hits the body closer to the waist on the left and the dotted circle has a major offset down and right. Usually the best coins of this style will have a little doubling on both sides rather than one great side and one real mess as seen here. Of course many are a mess on both sides so that explains the fair price of the same billon coin being anywhere from a couple dollars to over a hundred. I have seen many fewer nice obverses and suggest you consider buying one sided coins where Christ or Mary on the obverse are fully clear. Clear reverses (usually emperors) are easier to find. Anyone who can grade these things fairly without writing a paragraph has my admiration.
Want more? Much better than my little simplification: http://books.google.com/books?id=_L...Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=scyphate striking&f=false Scroll up to page 13 to start. I see I differed on identifying which die was on top with the experts. That factor makes no difference I see here as to the doubling.
I know we disagree some on this subject Doug, but I would also point out that the extreme thinness of the flan also could lead to the doubling. When you strike a thicker coin the mass absorbs the blow. When you try to strike a extremely thin flan its extremely common for weakness to appear, and double striking to happen since the flan is not absorbing the force. Its actually a lot more work to stop the doubling than it is just to let the hammer double strike. With low value coins I am not sure the minters would be interested in creating more work for themselves. Like I said, maybe they used both methods at times, but the absolutely easiest way to recreate these coins by far is to strike flat and then simply punch them into shape with a punch and a small cavity for the coin to form into. Chris
True, some Celtic, Himyarite, and Sogdian coins are found scyphate. At least these are the three other cultures I personally own scyphate coins of. There may be more. I think these scyphate were probably for a different reason, as none of them are as large, as thin, or as scyphate, as the byzantine and Latin issues. Chris
You are right in that we will never agree. Simply punching them into shape would produce a different pattern of flatness than the rocking die theory. Striking twice or more with a hammer does not create double striking. That requires moving the die between strikes. I suspect many coins were struck multiple times but relatively few show doubling including some where it is obvious that the die was moved and replaced to correct a bad first strike. Controlling hammer bounce would have been no more difficult in the Byzantine period than in the 4th century when coins were thin or with the Sasanians when they were thinner. I have no idea when the dead blow hammer was invented and my comments only apply to the coins of the period of my examples (not Celtic, Hungarian or other cuppers). Most of all I will disagree with the theory that some guy who tries to make a coin and fails gains knowledge from his failure proving anything. The guys who did it every day in the Byzantine shops probably took more than one attempt to figure out how to make the things efficiently. Perhaps your modern minter did discover a way of making cupped coins but did he discover the way it was originally done? Yes, I will take the theory of the 'Ivory Tower Elite' like Simon Bendall who based their theory on the study of thousands of coins before accepting the word of a historical recreator whose work I have not seen (got photos?). http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=71531.0 I did run across someone else who disagrees with the late Mr. Bendall on the manufacturing technique but I am unable to read the arguments (in Italian).
I will work on getting photos for you Doug. He even had double struck obverse and reverse coins, the reverse being the most common. The hammer would move between double strikes, making the reverse double struck. The obverse could happen if the flan stuck to the hammer. This has been discussed on Moneta as well, and I do not remember uniform agreement with Mr. Bendell's theory. I like Mr. Bendell's books a lot, I own all of his publications, I am just unsure his theory in this regard is true. Basically I see nearly every characteristic as being replicatable in a flat striking situation. Based on the millions upon millions of these coins minted, I simply would believe that the easiest form of minting would be preferred. I never claimed that the minter failing to recreate curve die minting proved anything, I am simply saying his easy method recreates the look, feel, and even the "soft spot" in the center of the curved coin perfectly. Do you have an explanation for why many of these coins will be fully struck yet have a punch mark or extreme weak spot in the very middle of the incused side? Btw Doug, I like that we disagree on this point. Makes for a good discussion, and hopefully I will learn something. Chris
We are looking at different coins. Show me a soft spot on a base metal coin that is not doublestruck. That could happen if the space between the dies was greater in the center than on the edge but the ones I have noted make it look like the weakness is from the strikes erasing each other rather than being flattened by a separate curving step. I agree that the mint would favor the simple answer and doublestriking seems simpler than adding a separate curving process. I really would like to know what the Italian text linked above says that the author says is in disagreement with Bendell. Does he mention a separate step?
Most of the soft spots I have seen personally, (I look for them now), have been on gold. I have seen pictures of the same softness on base metal coins, but have not seen one in hand. I am assuming the method of manufacture were identical. Bronze being harder would absorb such a blow without deformity in my opinion, while gold should show signs more readily. Just clarifying my statement. Chris
Ok, sorry about the late response but I had to try and get some decent picts of the coins in question. Here is a few, appreciate your thoughts!
Your picture looks like a brockage or when a coin stuck to one die and was used to strike the next coin. Is detail in the lower image actually recessed below the fields or is this just from the lighting? I would love to have a brockage of one of these coins. They are not scarce for flat coins but I don't have one of the cupped versions.
