Re-engraved die

It seems to be relatively common that dies for ancient coins were re-engraved to strengthen details which were wearing off the die, but I don't know how often additional elements were engraved into existing dies. Here is an example I discovered recently:

Here is a Messana tetradrachm, c 412-408 BC, which is ex Lockett collection, and is now in my collection:



And here is a coin from the same dies which appeared in NAC Auction 48, October 21, 2008, Lot 34:



Note the added grain ear which has been engraved into the reverse exergue of the NAC specimen! I wonder if there was some event or significance to this addition, or if the engraver merely added it for decoration to fill an empty space....? Or perhaps the grain ear was removed before my coin was struck...??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have no idea if or why it was re-engraved; however, they look like the same die. If so, your coin looks to have been struck first since the details seem sharper. BTW, very, very nice coin.

 

I don't think we can determine which coin was struck first by the details. Details could vary with how strongly the examples were originally struck and with subsequent wear and/or damage to the coins.

 

Are there known examples of dies having devices which were filled in and then put back into duty? It would be difficult to fill the die in a secure manner without disturbing the remainder of the engraving.

For that reason, I suspect your was struck first.

 

Interesting premise....and a gorgeous coin!!

Perhaps, as Bing suggests, it's just a matter of your coin being minted first with the 'pristine' dies. But, I suppose ancient 'moneyers' would repair the old dies from time to time and you certainly are correct about individual coin strikes---perhaps the poor soul was at the end of his long work day and simply tired ...LOL

In any case, I love that coin!!!

 

As for removing details from an existing die, I seem to recall a coin in a recent auction which had a name removed from the legend on the reverse die before subsequent strikings. It might be a Ptolemy I tetradrachm? I have tried acsearch.info, but don't know exactly what to search for!

 

I'm no expert but I do have a small amount of experience in metalsmithing. The primary difference in reverse dies of the two coins shown is the exergual grain. For it to be removed from the die, the surrounding metal would have to be removed, smoothed, and re-engraved. If the barley grain were simply scraped away, there would be a corresponding lump of metal on subsequently struck coins.

I doubt they had an effective way of securely depositing new metal into a selective area of an engraved die. This would also likely affect at least part of the adjacent devices and the filled area probably wouldn't withstand repeated striking.

ΜΕΣΣΑΝΙΟΝ and its sandwiching lines appear essentially the same in both coins. Therefore, I think the barley grain was added after your coin was struck.

I could be wrong though . Do any of you know of definitive evidence of metal being added to the face of a die as part of its refurbishment?

(added because I enjoy photoshop and animated gifs ):

 

@ancientnut Your coins are top notch, great choices. I am unsure which coin was struck first, I would assume your's was.

@TIF The Gif image is awesome, a picture says a thousand words but a gif speaks volumes.

 

To my eyes it seems obvious that the NAC coin was struck after yours and the leaf was added to the die. TIF's gif is helpful because it not only illustrates the die match, but also a very slight (but noticeable) spread in the devices indicative of die wear. A weak strike could certainly account for less clarity in the details, but not spread.

 

Rookie I suppose archeological question. Do you know where your coin was found, was it found in Messina? Do you collectors typically note attestation like that? I have a collection of Mazon Creek (not to be confused with Greek, lol) fossils and we know the pit of the find is archeologically-significant, so we note it.

 

Sometimes we know, most of the time we don't. Some of our coins come from specific hoards, whose history is well-known, in which case the provenance is listed with the attribution, i.e. - ex Braithwell Hoard.

 

I'm sure many others will respond to you 'eddiespin'...Mostly coins are not attested to where they were found---so many centuries have passed since many were located somewhere in the world, let alone sold on the coin market..

Of course, attribution can usually tell where they were minted or the 'history' behind them..... as I just noticed my good buddy JA just stated...

 

As soon as I opened this thread, I hoped TIF would make an animated GIF to illustrate it - thanks!

Your Messana tetradrachm is wonderful! Regarding the coin with the name removed, I suspect you're thinking about this Ptolemy I Soter tetradrachm, where PTOLEMY (in Greek, which is beyond my phone's typographic capabilities ) was erased from the die: http://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=266001

 

You're welcome! Note that the two coins were photographed from slightly different angles so a precise overlay isn't possible. The gif does demonstrate the die match nicely though.

(sigh) I remember lusting for that coin. The OP coin too-- it was on my watch/wish list.

You can see the slight bump of metal where ΠTOΛEMAIOY was "erased" from the die.

​

 

If removal is all that is important, one does not try so hard to smooth the change as on the reverse of this Gordian III Tomis which previously had a denomination (E or D<?) mark in the die. Now there is a bump.

 

Thank you. It could tell where the coins travelled to, it could suggest who traded with whom. But sure, you take them as you find them. I understand. These are mind-blowing enough, really. Archeological provenance, well, not a real biggie, but nice to have. In fossils, pretty obviously, it looms a biggie.

 

Hoard evidence can tell us a great deal, at least about the person or persons that deposited the hoard. For instance, here is a map comparing the mints found in the Antioch and Braithwell hoards. Antioch mints are circled in orange, Braithwell in green...



The disposition of the Antioch hoard shows earlier coins from the central Roman mints, and later coins from Antioch. The Braithwell hoard includes earlier coins from central mints with later coins from western (at this time Gallic Empire) mints. The person who accumulated the Antioch hoard started in Rome and traveled east, while the person who deposited the Braithwell hoard started in Rome and traveled literally to the western edge of the Empire. For a good read, see this Numiwiki article, from which the map is taken.

In many cases, hoards were likely deposited by soldiers. Since they had no local banks, they buried their money, intending to return to it after battle. The demise of some of these soldiers has been a boon to numismatics ever since - as macabre as that sounds.

 

I love that "quality positing," ...fascinating!

 

Here is a coin from my collection with a Braithwell Hoard provenance, Tetricus I with Hilaritas reverse. (Sorry to hijack your thread ancentnut!)

 

That's fascinating. I couldn't put it down. I didn't understand all of it, but enough of it. Very appreciated, John. Thank you, again.