Why were some coins cast and not struck?

“Struck” means you have soft hot flan, and then you struck it with a diet and a hammer. “Cast” means you have a cast where you fill it with liquid bronze, and then you break the cast in order to get the coin out.

Have I understood the two terms correct? I assume I have. So it leads me to other questions:

1) I thought that all genuine coins are struck. I was mistaken. Some Byzantine Cherson coins are indeed casted. So why were some coins struck while others were casted?

2) Is it obvious that my Cherson minted coin is a cast?, I mean can you see it with your naked eye although I assume it is?:




The “W” and “P” on it. On the reserve side the surface is completely smooth which make me thinking there were nothing on the reverse side. About 2,2 cm.






”Struck or Cast ?Coins from Cherson from the 5th century through Constans II (641-668) were struck. Their fabric, if not their designs, resembles normal Byzantine coin fabric. After a long gap in production, coinage apparently resumed at Cherson in the late 8th century with crudecast(not stuck) coins imitating earlier types. Coinage attributable to a particular emperor resumed withTheophilus(829-842) and from then on most types were cast. The fabric of the cast coins of Cherson is distinct and unlike that of other contemporary series of coins.”

From: http://esty.ancients.info/Cherson/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My theory is that coins were cast in the ancient world where there was an absence of die engravers. I would imagine it's easier to cast coins that to strike them from dies. All you need are two hubs to press into the plaster and you can make as many impressions as you want without wearing out the hubs. The hubs don't even have to be carved from metal - wood would suffice for making impressions in semi-hardened plaster. So, lack of proper technology?

 

In my manufacturing world, casting is an easy, low cost, low-tech, low-tolerance means to produce a lot of product. Cheap, fast, easy, done.

Producing dies are relatively more expensive, higher tolerance, and generally higher quality product come off the lines.

These are my generalities in my manufacturing world.

 

Instead of repeating what has already been said, might I suggest you read the following article. Also, note the following Byzantine coin that still has two coins conjoined from the casting process:

Stupko, M.V., E.Y. Turovskiy, Cast Coins of Medieval Cherson, Stratum plus no. 6 (2010), pp. 187-200

 

Yep, that's what I heard. Next, I believe the flans were cast at first - then struck. The Ancient collectors can jump on this thread and educate all of us.

 

Ha, ha...they already did.

 

Did you mean to link to a paper in Russian? My Russian is a bit...weak.

 

Yes, it is Russian. But the images as well as the translation of the key points of the article can be translated with Google. Note, English is basically the only language I can read

 

I looked also BUT Russian, German, and Chinese are like a second language to me.

NOT!!

 

Ok then, you've thrown down the gauntlet! I will do my best with Google translate. In Russia paper reads you!

 

I was surprised when you stated that it was more cheap of producing coins by casting. – I thought that a cast only can produce 1 coin. I did not realize a cast can produce many coins in just one cast like this:








Now it makes sense.


Can anyone then tell me whether other Roman or Byzantine coins were also cast? Or was it only in Cherson it found place?

 

There are certain provincials that are conjectured to be cast. One of them is this type of Julia Mamaea from Bostra, along with others of this period and mint. This is about as sharp as they get - the coin looks like it could have been cast, but perhaps it's just wear?

 

Google "sand cast" and "casting tree"

 

I study a particular series of cast coins and have even attempted casting myself. JA is totally wrong on this one. Casting does not imply a lack of skill. After all, the molds must still be engraved in intaglio, or at the very least a 'seed' coin be carved.

Casting is cheaper! Alegandron actually hit the nail right on the head. The molds are easier to carve and made from less expensive or even repurposed materials, they're reusable, and they don't wear out the way dies do. They're also fairly quick. As a complete amateur, I was able to go from a hunk of stone to a pile of coins in ~2 man hours.

I will grant that cast coins in the west have a tendency to be more crude, but I suggest that this should be attributed to cost cutting measures.

 

I disagree. There are Sogdian coins known both cast and struck. It appears the earlier ones were struck, and later ones were cast. To me, it was an economic decision. Cast coins are cheaper to produce than struck coins. Why? Because most flans are cast. So if you are striking a coin you need to first cast the metal, and then strike it. It seems to me that casting the flan with the design already in it would be much cheaper.

When dealing with a base metal coin, where the metal value is not a large concern, coinage costs because your main input. Under such a scenario, why wouldn't you cast your small denomination coins? In Sogdia where both base metal and precious metal coins were made, bronze coins were frequently cast, but never silver or gold. This is because silver and gold had much more attention given the weight.

Edit: Gosh darn it, Bill beat me by a quarter of a second!

 

For the Romans, cast coins were a carryover from cast Aes Rude which traded by weight.
The Roman Republic did not have gold and silver in large quantities. They used a system of barter and traded bronze by weight. I have seen articles that say this could have happened as early as 1000 BC. After 300 BC, the Romans started making cast bronze bars and coins that could trade without being weighed. The base bronze unit, the As, weighed one Roman pound or 329 grams. By 200 BC, silver coins had replaced bronze as the primary trade item and bronze coins were issued at less than bullion value or fiduciary money. The gold, silver and later bronze coins were struck.

 

I was just thinking about this issue the other night. Can provide some sources or discussion on the cast idea?

 

Not really. Someone said something of the sort at FORVM - I haven't been able to dig up any scholarship on it. Also, I was just throwing out ideas in my first post. It's not an area I'm familiar with. What you and Chris have to say makes ample sense.

 

I thought the first "coin" was a design "punched" into an electrum nugget in Lydia. So technically it is not a struck (?)coin. I also thought that it is not certain what came first (or the overlaps) casting or striking. The ancients and Chinese had a hand in it. Are my thoughts OK?

 

Btw, anyone who believes cast coins HAVE to be crude should check out Japanese cast coins. Exquisite detail. I cannot imagine them being crisper and clearer if they were struck. The Japanese historically have always had excellent quality.