Inconsistent

Take a look at this and see if you know what is on the other side:






Well, you guessed it. It is a nice Victory advancing left, foot on prow, from the Trier mint, surely with the usual very common CONSTANTINOPOLIS obverse.





Or, maybe not. Here is what is really on the other side:


Bust right (usually it is left) in helmet with ROMA retrograde and the rest blundered or doublestruck enough to be illegible. It must be a contemporary imitation mixing the usual CONSTANTINOPOLIS reverse with the usual VRBS ROMA obverse retrograde.

So, it would be a "hybrid" (the reverse does not belong paired with the obverse) for types but I am posting it for style. The revere Victory looks official and very well-done. The obverse is the wrong type, retrograde, and cartoonish. Remarkably inconsistent!

Show us "inconsistent" coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This type typically comes serrated, but this one is not. I know of 2 other examples...I'm sure there are more, but it is certainly "inconsistent" for the type.




Q. Antonius Balbus. 83-82 BC. AR Denarius (19.3mm, 4.15 g, 5h). Rome mint. Laureate head of Jupiter right; S • C to left, M • below chin / Victory driving galloping quadriga right, holding wreath, palm frond, and reins; [Q] (ANT) O • BA(LB)/ P R in two lines in exergue. Crawford 364/1c var. (serrate); Sydenham 742a var. (same); Kestner 3156-9 var. (same); BMCRR Rome 2742 var. (serrate, placement of dot); Antonia 1b var. (serrate); cf. RBW 1373-4; CNR Antonia 3/14 var. (serrate, placement of dot). For another unserrated example of a related issue, cf. CNR Antonia 4/2. British Museum also has an example but this one is superior.

 

My Urbs Roma / TRP is only inconsistent in that the scenes are mirror image reversed but the legends are correct.

 

@Carthago, your coin is also on the heavy side. Is that because the serrations would ordinarily be cut after the flans were formed rather than serrating the moulds? If so, it makes sense that a coin inadvertently struck on an unserrated flan would be overweight. Is the BM's example also overweight?

 

A good observation and question! I had to look it up, but the BM example is 3.68g, 6h which is more in the norm of 3.79g for the group on CRRO. Mine is nicer.

The British Museum example.

 

Ummm, according to David Sear, it is a bit uncommon to have the counter-mark on the reverse-side of the coin (does this count?)

 

Anonymous issues. Domitian to Antoninus Pius, AD 81-161. Æ Quadrans Rome mint. Helmeted and cuirassed bust of Mars right / Cuirass with arms, legs, and head?



Two reverse's Sear 1854 & 1853

 

Double struck. This is a regular Mars/cuirass issue

 

Did I miss the BM example when I cataloged this? Dang.

 

And I missed it in the Heritage auction where I could have bought it cheaper!

 

This question assumes that the cuts were made in a way that removed metal. I always assumed they were cut with a sharp tool and the spaces opened up when the coin was struck. Not removing metal would make no reduction in weight. To my eye, the cuts are too erratic and clean to have been made in mold. If they made a master mold, I would expect them to have cut more evenly.

 

No one told the Dacians these were supposed to be serrate! Or maybe they knew perfectly well, but being barbarians and all, just couldn't be bothered. Some from my imitations collection, now dispersed:

 

I agree a mold was not likely. Your theory that the edges were "sliced" rather than "notched" is interesting. I assume that we would have evidence, if this were the case, i.e. unopened slices on an offstruck or weakly struck coin. Does anyone have an example of a serrated denarius with unopened slices?

 

I have a few Chinese coins that have an inconsistent character style, missing characters, or missing/different character strokes. No pictures though...

 

I have been involved with Product Development manufacturing companies for most of my career. We like to test concepts, reverse engineer, engineer and develop around fit-form-function, etc. I like the cut material concept for manufacturing.

Here is a quick, down-and dirty test that I did to illustrate expanded slices after striking to create Serrated Coins:

SLICE MATERIAL: (Using a soft modeling compound it "opened" more than metal would, however, concept is close)


STRIKING FLAN:



My serrateds for comparisons:

RR C Mamilius 82 BCE AR Den Serrate Mercury caduceus Ulysses Dog Argos Sear 282 Craw 362-1 Obv-Rev.jpg


RR L Licinius Crassus Cn Domitius Ahenobarbus 118 BCE NARBO Serrated Attic Helmet Gallic Biga Sear 158 Craw 282-3 Obv-Rev.jpg

I see similar serrated footprints/shapes, and I see the strike of the die similar in the molding material as well as the denarii...

 

Could someone tell me the purpose of serrating denarii? I assume it was to conserve silver as opposed to Seleucid coins which were done for cultural/aesthetic purposes.

 

The exact purpose is not known. Most theories support aesthetics, though some suggest it was to thwart forgery and I've also heard to reduce flan cracking during striking. Fourrees of serrated denarii tend to refute the forgery argument. Here's a serrated fourree for instance:

 

I have read the same as @Carthago ... Thwart Forgery? Like patents, there are ALWAYS ways to get around ANYTHING. So Forgery thwarting is weak.

I tend to think along the manufacturing issues: Since they were pounding out a LOT of these denarii during these times, flan cracking would had been an issue. Relieving stress through cutting lines into the sides of a cylinder of flans (stacked), may have alleviated the pressure cracks during striking...

 

The standard explanation has been to mimic test cuts to demonstrate the coin was not a fourree. Of course, we know that there are serrate cores, for example, the fourth coin down on this page:

http://esty.ancients.info/imit/imitRR.html

proving the idea was not foolproof. However, serrate coins were said to be preferred in Gaul. This is mentioned by the ancient author Tacitus.