Here are a couple of coins produced by the Rome mint about a century apart, but they seem to reveal the sequence by which engravers produced dies. I propose that the devices were engraved first and then the inscriptions were added. We can see this illustrated by coins in which the inscription is modified to fit the space remaining after the devices were engraved. A case involving an obverse. The poor fellow tasked with fitting LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F around the portrait of Lucilla decided to just engrave the final G and F over the drapery of the bust: Lucilla, AD 164-169, RIC 788. A case involving the reverse. It appears the sequence of engraving the die was as follows: The figure of Laetitia was engraved first, followed by the placement of the officina mark V in the right field, and lastly, the reverse inscription was fit into the space available: Gallienus, AD 253-268. RIC 226F. Post your examples illustrating the sequence in which a coin die's features were engraved (or anything you feel is relevant).
I thought this was an accepted fact...has anyone ever proposed differently? There are plenty of examples of legends crowded in and clashing with busts.
I have posted this before - but relevant here.... I have a modest example with an unusual minting error - most probably showing that the legends were cut by a different person than the artist cutting the Temple image: As you can see the " S C " is reversed and the word "CLVSIT" (meaning closed) is at the 12 o'clock position ... this should be at the 6 o'clock position (per normal examples). This was pointed out to me by two members on this forum.. Inverting the coin shows the legend in the correct alignment and "S C" now aligned: Nero. A.D. 54-68. Æ as. 9.7 gm. 28 mm. Rome mint. Struck circa A.D. 67. His laureate head right; IMP NERO CAESAR AVG GERM / The Temple of Janus, garland hung across closed doors to left, latticed windows on right; PACE P R VBIQ PARTA IANVM CLVSIT around; S C to either side. Sear 689.
I had read (can't remember where) that it's possible that rather than engraving dies over and over, the Romans used a rudimentary hubbing technology, e.g. a pre-engraved obverse and reverse punch, and one each for obverse and reverse legends. I have several that show signs of the dies being "refreshed" and partially obscuring the legend. Gordian III - notice that the reverse legend from about 1:00 to 3:00 only shows the top half of each letter Constantine II - The obverse legend is nearly impossible to read! Julia Mamaea - Fecunditas is markedly more clear than anything else on the reverse? Maximinus I - Weakness near 12-2:00 forming a neat arc Macrinus - A nice ring of legend weakness in the obverse around a very crisp portrait
There are so many factors involved in the resulting coin.... the thickness of the metal across the blank flan i.e. is there enough metal to fill the devices. On the following coin for example, there simply wasn't enough metal at the centre parts of the blank to fill the centre of the portrait or the centre of Jupiter. These flat areas are from the striking process rather then wear. after a number of strikes metal can be left in the die from previous strikes which can build up over time resulting in letters being almost obliterated from the resulting coin. On the following coin the reverse legend is FELECITAS TEMPOR but several letters remain as ghostly outlines of the originals How even is the strike? Here there is a slightly uneven strike meaning that there was no enough force at 6-8 o'clock on the obverse, translating to 11-1 on the reverse. The result can be much more pronounced, especially when the uneven strike is off centre The you have die wear, double strikes, shifts and so many other factors that can impact on the resulting coin. I am just saying that a weakness in the end coin is not necessarily a direct result of the engraving of the dies.
Along the lines of running out of room for lettering, some of the most egregious examples can be found in the coinage of Marcianopolis, presumably because the name of the city is so long. Here's a typical example... We read MAPKIANOΠ from 2 to 5 o'clock, then jump to the lower left field for OΛI, then in the right field T and Ω are bisected by Concordia's drapery, and to finish the word we have N in exergue... This sort of thing confused the hell out of me when I first started studying Roman Provincial coins. With the Roman penchant for abbreviation one wonders why this sort thing happened. You could abbreviate the emperor's names, but evidently it wasn't kosher to abbreviate the city name.
I find it interesting that on this denarius of Commodus that the ribbon from the laureate crown extends out to the edge of the flan, and then is used to form part of the legend, here the C. I don't have the experience to know if this is widespread elsewhere. Excuse the poor photo from the seller, it makes the coin appear far rougher than it is in hand due to the harsh lighting, and I haven't been well enough to start properly attempting to photograph my own coins.
My instinct is that it is a quirk of the engraver, and the ribbon was extended with the purpose of incorporating it into the legend, but that's pure speculation without any basis.
More likely, it would appear, the (probably) lesser-skilled engraver doing the legends simply blundered into the tips of the wreath-ties when cutting the legend rather than deliberately morphing them into letters. Roman coins almost never include "secret" meanings or rebuses (you don't need to tell me about the EQVIT series by Aureolus here - there are isolated exceptions to every rule in a field as large as Roman numismatics) or designs and objects that morph into different forms or different objects, such as those you would not be surprised to find in Celtic-influenced art. The only example I can think of offhand is the heads of infants Gemellus and Germanicus emerging from crossed cornucopiae on this sestertius in poshumous honor of Drusus, struck by Tiberius (this type was copied later in the RIC series, as well). http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album90/09_Drusus_sestertius?full=1 Even this isn't quite a case of the cornucopiae "morphing" into heads, the heads are merely represented as busts atop the cornucopiae. To go on with this theme a bit, the piece pictured below happens to be one of the very first group of ancient coins I ever owned, acquired, ca. 1957-58. For over a decade I believed it was an unpublished type of posthumous dupondius of Faustina Sr. on which appeared to be the head and arms of an infant emerging from a cornucopiae held by Vesta (I additionally thought for years that it must be Faustina) - but that was a stretch of years which began when I was 8. According to the references I eventually acquired, it's actually the Palladium. http://www.stoa.org/gallery/album93/ML21_Faustina_I_Augusta_as?full=1
Yes indeed, that is quite possibly the case. I must say I find the heads protruding from cornucopiae very comical on that type. I have admired it many times. I also see a protruding torso on you Faustina coin, and would treasure it as such even while armed with the correct knowledge about what is actually represented.
I love your wandering sixth letters. I have a neat stack of eight extra letters including the ligate pair omega nu at the end. Much more rare IMHO are coins that showed careful planning using letters small enough to fit without creativity. This Gordian from Nikopolis even uses the proc istron ending without abbreviation. That required some planning!
IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXANDΛι It's supposed to be ALEXAND AVG. They also messed up on the reverse titles (normal for the type). Sev Alex never had a coinciding second tribunician power with a second consulship. Oh that wacky Antioch mint...
All of @dougsmit 's interesting examples reminded me I have this one, with 6 letters placed vertically in the right field on the reverse: Philip I and Otacilia Severa, AD 244-249. Roman Provincial Æ Pentassarion; 12.50 g, 26.1 mm, 7 h. Moesia Inferior, Marcianopolis, Legate Prastina Messallinus, AD 244-246. Obv: ΑVΤ Μ ΙΟVΛ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟC ΑVΓ Μ | WΤΑΚ CЄΒ-ΗΡΑ CЄ, laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Philip I right, vis-à-vis diademed and draped bust of Otacilia left. Rev: VΠ ΠΡΑCΤ ΜΕCCΑΛΛΕΙΝΟV ΜΑΡΚΙΑΝΟΠΟ | ΛΕΙΤΩΝ, Sarapis wearing kalathos, standing left, extending arm and holding scepter; E (denomination) in left field. Refs: AMNG I 1194; Moushmov 852; Varbanov 2082 (die match); Hristova & Jekov 6.41.6.1; SNRIS Marcianopolis 75.
Here's a Commodus that I think clearly shows an example of the legends being engraved last. The engraver misjudged the length of the reverse legend and had it snake under the reverse design. It makes finding die matches easy! Commodus - RIC 169 - 188 AD
