Thoughts on 3-Coin Ring?

My guess as to what it actually is. Cane Topper. Again going with Lordmarcovian, I would say probably Victorian era, maybe earlier. If appears to fit well in your hand, if there is a hole on the bottom, like for a long shaft of wood, then cane top.

Something, many people forget is how elegant canes were, quite often a fashion statement. I have several of my great grandfathers canes that are done in gold handles. Something you do not see really today. There are people that do collect canes. So it may be worth something along those side of things. Of course the cane itself is missing. Without seeing it in hand that's my guess.

Which they were big into coins back then as well. This might have originated in England as Roman coins were found there. I am not sure without actually looking but it is quite possible the whole thing is cast as 1 piece rather than coins embedded? So not something, really high class but much nicer than plain wood.

On a cane it would look something like this below. I couldn't find one with coins but it would be my guess
http://psjfactoids.blogspot.com/2015/09/california-gold-quartz-canes.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Another one at auction, similar to yours in size, I can't find any with coins in them though. But still my guess of what it is.

https://www.gemrockauctions.com/auctions/antique-silver-walking-stick-knob-193cts-gt-2110-223903

 

I received it in the mail today - its pretty heavy and also pretty large.

The coins are about the size of a quarter, little tad larger. They look set in, not cast as one whole, but its hard to tell perfectly.

I agree perhaps it could be functional as a cane topper, but I doubt it due to its weight and seemingly solid top adding to the weight as well as its perfect fit as a ring size and the hole in the bottom functioning more like a ring then a cane topper...

Plus the top narrows to a flatness like a cane sure, but it doesn't conform comfortably for a holding from the top.... If it were a cane topper, it might be a cane accessory to go over a curved handle.

 

I will also say, the coins have a lot of depth to them so perhaps they are not coins afterall

 

What if this was not a stamping tool and/or branding tool from that era - and by era I mean like shortly after the New Athena came out.

Its sized and weighted perfectly for applying pressure downwards with the coin face.

The top (or bottom) seems to imply there was pressure applied on it (Athena Coin side).

 

I spent 325 on it, and it certainly feels valuable holding it.

I probably will keep it because when I hold it, I get this sense that its old and of some inherent value.

I'm going with the theory this was a leather stamping tool potentially or other stamping/branding tool. Out of curios, is there any record of how coins were made back then????

 

For instance, lets say this was old, could something of this relief and metal composition make an actual cast for a coin - say the coin on the top or is there any record of leather stamping tools from the era?

 

"
How dies were sunk is still being debated. There is not much evidence, but we have the coins, and some idea of how many were struck. A coining team could produce up to 20,000 strikes, wearing out a set of dies, in one day. During the 2nd century about 17 million Roman denarii were issued each year, so a year's issue required up to 1000 dies; the bronze issues of the Constantinian period must have required many thousands of dies.

Roman coins all bear standardized portraits, and it is difficult to visualize how portraits could be so uniform if dies were individually engraved by many artisans. Two replication processes were feasible, though we have no proof that the Romans used them: casting dies and hubbing (impressing a design into soft metal). The Greeks used bronze or lead die patterns to cast bronze dies, and at least two pattern specimens have survived.

If a replication process were used for the central design, the process would have been similar to that described by the medallist Cellini in the 1500s:

1) The central design is sunk in the die blank, either by casting or hubbing.
2) The legend is added by letter punches which are individually struck, perhaps using a fixture to align them.
3) The border is similarly added by punching dots around the legend.
4) The completed design is hand engraved for touchup where needed, then polished.

Alternatively, the die-making workshop may have employed apprentices working under master engravers who cut the portrait. This would explain why engraving of the portrait is frequently much better than the surrounding work. Standardization of portraits may be explained by the master engravers copying official portrait medals."

 

I never said they were coins themselves.

Was the agreement that the one on the top was an actual coin style or not?
Disregarding the sides, which are designs on the tool itself.

 

Fair enough. I was trying to envision the potential on how the dies themselves were made and that a tool of this nature would easily make a die, also the hole is big enough for a pole if not handheld.

 

It was conjectured that this could also be a wax sealing tool as opposed to my theory of a coin die stamping tool.

[EDIT] But that would mean it would have to be inverted....
[EDIT] Going to stop reviving this thread, am going to a museum to have it appraised and investigated from my conjecture.
[EDIT] If anyone cares there are more ancient artifacts from the same seller that look legitimate http://www.ebay.com/sch/finet/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=

 

Likely not a cane topper as one coin would be upside down, which doesnt make sense. Clearly copies of tetradrachms (Athens and Alexander), but they are fake, not real in any sense whatsoever (nor in the correct metal). Having said all that I think it is a Victorian Grand Tour item, generally 100 years or so old. So, yes, an antique, but it holds no coin value.