Most ancient coins can only be attributed to a few years. What is the smallest margin of date attribution have you seen?
GREAT question! Mine: JULIUS CAESAR First 2 weeks of March, 44 BCE; or the LAST 2 weeks prior to his assassination... Roman Imperiatorial Julius Caesar Lifetime Issue Moneyer: P Sepullius Macer AR Denarius 4.03g Minted: 1st 2 weeks-Mar 44 BCE Obv: CAESAR – DICT PERPETVO Veiled - Rev: Venus Victory sceptre star Syd 1074a Sear Imperators 107e Crawford 480/14 Rare Alföldi arranges Crawford 480 series coins in (44 BC) month order as follows: RRC 480/1, Buca - January RRC 480/2, DICT QVART - early February RRC 480/3/4/5, CAESAR IMP - late February RRC 480/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14, DICT PERPETVO - early to mid March RRC 480/17/18, CAESAR IMPER - late March RRC 480/19/20, PARENS PATRIAE - April RRC 480/15/16, MARIDIANVS - April RRC 480/21/22, CLEMENTIAE CAESARIS and Mark Antony - April
NOT MY COIN Dated to within 4 days. Minted January 1 to 4 42 AD Description from Nomos Claudius. AD 41-54. Quadrans (Copper, 19mm, 2.35 g 6), Rome, 1-4 January 42. TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG Modius on three legs. Rev. PON M TR P IMP COS II around S C. Cohen -. BMC -. BN -. RIC 88 = C. H. V. Sutherland, An Unpublished Quadrans of Claudius, NC 1963, pp. 55-56. Rare. With a green and brown patina. About extremely fine. From a German private collection, bought from Münzen und Medaillen AG in 1970 and described as being from the Niggeler Collection. Sutherland points out that Claudius entered into his second consulship on 1 January 42 and, shortly thereafter was acclaimed Pater Patriae (on the 4th, or at least no later than the 12th). In fact, quadrantes reading PP COS II are quite common and must have been struck from c. 5/12 January until 31 December 42. Thus, this coin and the others that have appeared on the market can only have been produced during an extremely short period (from 4 to 11 days). The curious fact is that a correct description of this coin was not published until after the Ashmolean bought their specimen in 1962 and Sutherland wrote about it the next year (that coin was ex Münzhandlung Basel 1, 1934, 173 where it was, of course, given the wrong description). In any case this is one of the few Roman coins that can be precisely dated to such a short period of mintage.
There will be many responses to the thread, but in all honesty we only have a general idea. While excellent historical records still exist from ancient times there are other factors we just cant know. Such as, how long did it take to engrave a die? A couple hours, or a couple days? How long were coins really struck after a die was produced? Did it depend on the type of coinage needed and ordered from the mint, did they use a die for a few days or weeks, put it into storage for a year and then pull it back out when additional coinage was needed? These are questions we can never know. We can only make our best guess. One thing is certain, dies would have been used until their usefulness was exhausted. This means that coins could have been produced long after a new title or date had been added an emperors name and new dies produced.
You can look at the Emperors with short reigns like Otho (the year of four Emperors) and Pertinax. The "year of the six Emperors" AD 238 had two Emperors of 21 days -- Gordian I and Gordian II. other short runs would include usurpers like Nepotian-- 28 days
I agree. I think a lot of coins that are "dated" to a certain timeframe probably were struck for a period thereafter. A coin die was an investment. If something happens, usually they need to get coinage out to appease everyone, even if it, for a short period of time, may not be the right person on the coin. Now, timed within months I agree with. Timed down to a few days or a couple of weeks, and I am leery of that tight of a timeframe.
