Question about Maximinus Follis

In looking closely at this follis I just noticed what appears to be some doubling of the coin. Look at the face, the chin to the right, and there appears to be doubling of the image and the legend at about two o'clock seems almost to have jumped up a bit. My question is, does doubling, if that is what I have here, of a coin like this have any effect on its value, either increasing or decreasing it or is this sort of thing so common that it has no effect on it? Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Clearly a double strike. Probably the hammer just bounced a little bit by accident. I wouldn’t say they are that common, but not extra rare neither. For the value I could not tell. Some ‘flipover’ or double strike with different dies are sometimes search by collectors , but I would call them ‘curiosities’.

 

Kevin McGonigal, Since both sides show obvious doubling the coin must have moved in between strikes. An ancient coin purist would frown on a coin like this. Ocatarinetabellat makes a good point however, if it were a flip-over double strike it would have some interest.

 

I think it's pretty cool. Definitely a keeper. A mint error in your favor.

 

@dougsmit is pretty well versed in ancient minting errors if I'm not mistaken. I'd like to hear what he has to say, if anything, on this coin. Looks pretty cool to me!

 

Some serious minting errors (love 'em!).



Gallienus



Probus



Well-known on CoinTalk, this great flipover centenionalis of Constans. My win of the Steve x6 Menagerie of Ancient Animals & Awesomeness. (Some of you are jealous).

 

My opinion: This amount of doubling is a fault and would reduce the value. To be an error worthy of adding value, an ancient needs to be really 'different'. I have several doublestrikes and the ones below strike me as premium items worth perhaps 120% of 'normal'. Overstrikes involving coins being struck on earlier coins are a bit better but still need to be really messed up to be of great interest.

Septimius Severus flipover doublestrike with Mars Pater shows PATER at the right of both sides and the obverse legend at the left. This item would be a bit better if the combination portrait and Mars on each side were just a bit more equal but this is a pretty classic error coin as it is. What is it worth? IDK. When I'm dead my heirs won't be impressed by what it brings and it won't be sold before that.


This Constantine I has a clear doublestrike without the flipover feature. IMO, it is of great value since the reverse die shows a strong die clash which is also doubled proving the incuse areas are a die clash rather than a brockage that was restruck to correct. Cash value? Again, I'll never know but the number of people interested in such things suggests it will not be much.



To repeat: Many/most ancient coins have faults that would be called errors if found on a modern coins. Very few are so severe that they would cause a reasonably normal collector to pay as much (let alone a premium) as they would for a well struck, normal coin. Strange people like me like them for their educational features.

 

Those are both really cool @dougsmit! That Constantine I is really cool looking. That Probus is insane @Pellinore . I wonder what the worker was thinking the day they let that make it out of the mint. I need to remind myself that minting standards were a lot more lax back then compared to today. Still, I'm surprised some of these coins still left the mint.

 

His thoughts may have been influenced by the boss standing over him yelling 'Faster!'. Did you know if you beat one of the workers, the others might work faster? I doubt they will work better. Long ago, I worked in an auto factory where inspectors had to watch for a foreman who was known to wipe oil off leaking shock absorbers and put them back in the crate to go to Detroit. He made the quotas. He also was why I bought a different brand of auto then and still do.

 

When a reverse rotation is lined up as nicely as the one on your "Probus," I am dubious that it was actually an error, at least in the sense of "mishap." I think sometimes the Celators liked to show off their prowess as die handlers who could make errors that looked at first glance like normal coins (and so could pass quick inspection). In the case of this coin, the obverse stayed put in the anvil die, and the hand held pestle was, I think, intentionally rotated to what the Celator thought/hoped would give him spot on alignment. Just think of what it would take to avoid getting half of the letters to show at all, and the other half to strike clearly!! Maybe they had a little wager riding on the success of it, with high fives and a spot of beer for the craftsman who pulled it off.

Or maybe not.

But I always admire this type of "mis-strike for its possibilities. BTW it isn't Probus, nor do I think it's Constans. I think it's Constantius II, and that the "TI" were weak in the strike.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Irbguy. The personnel at the mint might have possessed all sorts abilities and might be given to tricks and pranks, or maybe not, we'll never know. The obverse of the 'Constans' is oddly weak, but in your view, it can have been deliberate. They must have gone a long way to omit the two letters, but when the reverse was a prank, the celator possibly wanted to anonymize the obverse so not to incur Someone's wrath. (Or maybe not).

Who would you suggest for the 'Probus'? I think the coin would fit this one on Wildwinds with text IOVI CONS PROB AVG on the reverse, RIC 175.

 

That is Probus. RIC 175 is spot on.

I can explain the following mint error. Would someone else like to have a go before I say what I think happened....

 

Anyone want to try to explain the Aurelian above?

The reverse has all the hints you need but I will start you off.

The Reverse legend reads SOLI INS AVG, but this isn't an engraving error.

 

SOLI INS AVG is gibberish, what can it mean? Also, it looks like the engraver of SOLI was called away suddenly, sacked or struck by lightning - and another with a different cutting technique took his place for the rest of the text.

By the way, that naked man on the reverse is a real juggler, not only presenting a wreath in his right hand and keeping a ball in the air behind his back, but also managing to kick a bound prisoner on the floor.

 

Next clue. The mint was producing this reverse type but with two different reverse legends in this issue. SOLI INVICTO and ORIENS AVG.

 

Not jealous but I know the coin from its x6 days. I could not convince myself one way or the other if the two strikes were from the same die rotated or from two different but very similar dies. That call makes a huge difference in explaining what happened. Curtis Clay has posted several bits over on Forvm Ancients discussing the theory that two teams might share one obverse die and occasionally fail to clear the previous coin before the second strike. This requires two reverse dies but they can be of the same type. I want one that is obvious. I have an Arcadius similarly ambiguous and not nearly as half and half as this example.

 

I originally thought it was a reject SOLI INVICTO rescued from the bin and restruck with ORIENS AVG dies. That could be it, I suppose, but then you'd expect some evidence of overstrike on the obverse, which I don't see. So maybe it was a case where two flans stuck together, and one of them received the SOLI INVICTO reverse and a blank obverse. That was then restruck with a fresh obverse and ORIENS AVG reverse? The two reverse types can be very similar so it looks like a double strike.

 

My favourite (flip-over) double strike.

 

Doug has explained my coin. One obverse die, two different reverse dies. The coin has been struck on two quick strikes with the same reverse type but two different legends.

 

A similar effect here but from two different reverse types.


Cornucopiae

Victory