There is a little bit of standard information out there, a book, some articles. One of the basic challenges is just understanding how this was done. My father-in-law was a craftsman who had punches for his initials to mark tools, etc., and I have experimented with coins with these punches and the results are not like chopmarks. More on that later. For now, here are two coins.
So Mike, sounds like you are saying the marks were not punched into the coins. If not punched - were they carved into the coins ?
No, he was saying that he has experimented with coins and punches - but not those coins. Do you understand what chopmarks are ? You can read about them here - Chopmarked Coins
Here are some examples of some chop marks some can bring a nice premium . I have some coins with counter stamped marks but there different Jaszzcoins joe
They are punched. I have seen enough to know that. Over on rec.collecting.coins a few years back there were ignorant speculations about how "banker's marks" and test cuts were made. You could just try it and see, but some people preferred to offer a priori opinions. Anyway, my father-in-law and I tried punches and chisels and hammers with the coins on wood or braced by metal. (Some rcc people said "hard surface" while other reasoned "pliant surfact.") I never got anything that looked like a test cut or a chopmark. Take the lack of "pimples." I have five chopmarked 8 reales coins. None has raised surfaces on the other side opposite the chopmark. But the coins I made all do -- or most, if they were hit hard enough for solid image. Maybe it was just me -- and I think that's a valid point: people even 100 years ago were not who we are today. (They had schools for "shroffs" where they learned to test coins.) Maybe our machine age punches and machine age coins are different enough from 150 years ago in Asia or 1500 years ago in Rome or whatever... For one thing our coins are alloys and are struck with tons of pressure, while theirs were pure and were hammered hot by men with muscles. I dunno... But I admit that. I tried it and I have no clue. Still, it's interesting, eh?
Allow me to tack on some images of my "chopped" coin! And if I may, anyone what to chime in on weather they think this coin is genuine (gulp)? I picked it up at an estate auction in Honolulu a few years ago. One of my favorites - so be gentle! Mahalo, Henrik
Indeed it is interesting. I have often wondered if the punches were heated (it would have been quite east to keep a brazier nearby) and then struck with the coin sitting on thick, hard leather. Just supposition on my part but one that has a certain logic I think.
This phenomenon wasn't new. From what I've seen, such 'banker's marks' were very common during Republican Rome, but tapered off during the reign of Augustus. They're also commonly seen on sigloi of the Achaemenid Empire. I'll illustrate with some coins from my collection. Here's a number of marks on a denarius of L. Pompilius Molo, struck 97 BC in Rome: Here's a rather elegant Eastern-style eye stamped onto the edge of a thick Achaemenid Persian siglos (sellers image):
This is the first chopmarked mark coin that I paid dearly for: For those that don't know what it is, it is a rather rare Japanese trade dollar coin. Yes it does NOT say yen but it says trade dollar. It should be genuine as it weights 27.2 grams on my scale which is right for this type. Appearently it should be 27.22g according to the JNDA catalog.
