Ancients: Ancient Errors

While $275 seems high, this is a very pretty brockage compared to most including Steve's with the incuse face off flan. One advantage of brockages is that the incuse nature protects the detail that wears off first on the normal side so you can get a work coin with a lot going for them on the reverse.

A recent European auction had a great brockage of a Gordian III twin portrait provincial. Which one of you outbid me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

what-the-fa?

=> *whateva* ... I can take those type o' comments from the likes o' Doug



Oh, but nope, it wasn't me that bought that coin ....

=> oh, and my coin cost well below two hundred bucks, delivered (I'm not sure if that's a good deal, but I was fresh-off the modern-coin boat at the time, so I figured that error coins were always "big-money"!!)

 

Wasn't me but I bet it was this one.

I hadn't fully gotten into buying mode when it came up. In retrospect I wish I'd bid on it.

I stumbled upon it while looking for fodder for the CCF thread "Guess the Emperor"-- trying to be tricky, I showed cropped incuse portrait of GIII for that entry. The lighting of the photo makes the incuse look... what is the word? surely not 'excuse', lol.

https://www.pecunem.com/auction-7/lot-216

 

"In relief" is generally accepted as the opposite of excuse.

Doug, on the second SS, I see PBINCIRI. If the B's aren't accepted as an error on account of their ubiquity, perhaps the R replacing P is?

 

That is it! I wanted it because it is strong evidence of the fact that the centration pit was applied to the flan and not part of the die. There is no question on this from other evidence but there are still some people who need help seeing the obvious.

 

Hmmm, can you walk me through your thought process? I'm not seeing how this provides the evidence one way or another. Admittedly though, I have not studied the centration pit issue.

However, it doesn't make any sense to me for a central bump to be part of the die. It would be unnecessarily difficult for the engraver and would serve no purpose that I can see. I think a central die bump would make the flan tip unsteadily when placed on the die, increasing the chance of an off-center or otherwise poor strike.

Edit: Oh, I get it now. At first I thought the central thing on this coin's reverse was in relief. It's not. It has the same shadow pattern as the rest of the devices, so it must be incuse. Therefore, that incuse dimple must be on the flan. The brockage-producing coin it was struck with must have lined up pretty well with that dimple because I don't see any moved/raised metal nearby.

 

TIF, the center dimples are by-products of lathe machining used to adjust the flans prior to striking. There's a good site on it here - be sure and check out all the pages...

http://www.classicalcoins.com/flans1.html

 

If it were a modern coin with a first strike mirror brockage then there would typically be more distortion. Since it is an ancient and struck at lower speed & lower pressure, perhaps it is normal to get such a perfect mirror brockage image? If it doesn't scream fake to any of you ancient folks, then I might buy it the next time I meet this dealer.

Note that the brockage side appears rather flashy & perfect (including the field). I would expect this in the protected areas where it is inverse relief. The protected area shows some really nice luster & detail of the hair. However, the field on the brockage side is also flashy & does not appear to have the contact marks and wear associated with the obverse. Maybe this perfect field is the result of when it was cleaned long ago. I appreciate you guys looking at it to see if it looks like a normal ancient brockage to you.
BTW, this coin comes from an honest dealer with a guaranty. I've dealt with the man for a dozen years. However, he has only recently begun dealing in ancient coins and he bought this coin from the proverbial "old time collector".

 

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/pit.html

I really need to update the photos on my pit page but you are welcome to see it anyway. The one linked by John is better. The photo below shows two coins sharing the obverse die with very different pits. The tiny raised dot in the center was used in laying out the border circle and was part of the die.

 

I believe it is probably OK but agree it verges on too good to be true. The photo makes me wonder if the reverse was buffed. Before buying I might look closely for polish scratches and see if the price might drop if the reverse surfaces are not clean. At $275, I'd consider sending it for a Sear certificate.

 

Here's an odd little error for you. I wonder how many of you would have spotted it.

Probus
Obv:– IMP C M AVR PROBVS AVG, Radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev:– CONCORD MILIT, Emperor standing right, clasping hand of Concordia.
Minted in Siscia (IV/XXI in exe) Emission 7 Officina 6. A.D. 280
Reference:– Alfoldi type 26, unlisted. RIC 651 Bust type C var. This error (IV instead of VI is not listed in RIC or Alfoldi)



The interesting point here is that IV was not used to represent workshop 4. They used the letter Q. This is an error where IV was engraged instead of VI for workshop 6.

 

Thanks, John! I'd seen that page before but somehow didn't notice that it continued on other pages.

I read Doug's page on the subject.

 

I have a bronze Tiberius brockage. The only reason I mention it is bronze brockages seem less common than silvers.

Btw, I simply believe anyone posting Byzantine errors are "cheating". I find it harder to find a properly struck Byzantine. Most seem to be "errors".

 

True... those Byz overstrikes were purposeful, right? So not 'error', just sloppy.

 

In many cases 'sloppy' may be harsh. They recycled coins of old standards having adjusted their weights by trimming away metal and struck the new design. This was easier than melting and casting new blanks and it seems no one cared how they looked. The vast majority of Byzantine coins were made with no care for what we would call quality or beauty.

 

The same is true for many of the coins that interest me from the Near East and Arabia, particularly from the Judaean and Nabataean cultures. The Himyarites actually minted some very artful and original pieces, but even then, they don't approach the Graeco-Roman standard. I suppose collecting the sloppy coins is engaging in the hobby of archeology, more so than garnering pieces of "high art" sculpture.

The "error" coins in the above-mentioned series are well-engraved, strongly-struck pieces on round, carefully-adjusted flans. They are scarce, but occasionally someone didn't get the memo to hastily churn out crappy coins, or disregarded it altogether.

 

Constantius II Æ. 351-355 AD. D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG, diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right / FEL TEMP REPARATIO, soldier spearing fallen horseman left, ALEA in ex.

FEL TENP

 

t

Thought this was interesting -Lysimacheia309BC AE17 Thrace

 

Ot took me a while to even see this!

 

This is another error coin in the group of this type I purchased. How in the world does a coin of Lysimachia (sp) in Thrace show an inscription from Antioch? Especially with this light colored metal - unless of course this metal was melted down to make these coins and it so happened that this part of the inscription survived. Make you wonder about the other error I posted. Of course it could be a simple overstriking = but of what type? More research needed - but it shows these coins did circulate. I am going to see if can find more error in the group.