My last coin of 2016 arrived today and is probably the cheapest coin ever offered at an auction that charges a 15% buyer's fee and $6.25 shipping totaling a 50% add on to hammer. Of course most bidders would not bid on such a thing but I bid a lot lower than I would have paid a deale at a show so it all worked out. I collect technical errors and have only seen a few of these before so decided to bid. Of course, as luck would have it, I was outbid on all the other lots of interest in the sale so ideas of diluting the postage were dashed. Many are aware of brockages where a coin sticks in the reverse die and produces an incuse of the obverse on the next coin struck. This is not a brockage. When this coin was made, two blanks had stuck together and were hammered at one time. This coin received the obverse; the other (wouldn't I love to have it!) received the reverse. At some point after striking the two separated. The reverse here is not quite blank. There is a very faint depression behind the head and a raised rim showing that the two flans were not perfectly aligned when struck. The mate to this coin would have a similar raised rim on one side of the design. I have no idea what the reverse was and the chance of finding the mate is something beyond winning the $500,000,000 lottery prize. The coin has good detail and less than beautiful sand patina showing that the two were separated before the coin was buried. Can we assume that both halves circulated freely and normal antoniniani? There is one similar appearing technical oddity. There are coins which have been planed to remove the reverse leaving a flat blank surface easy to glue to some surface. Such a coin will not have the dent behind the head or the raised rim caused by the double stacked flan.
Wow, that's a very cool OP-addition (congrats) $10 says that you're gonna find the reverse at the next road-trip coin show (you're just that guy) => hey, congrats on being that fricken awesomely cool guy!! Mentor, I hope that you have a great 2017 => oh, and thanks for your awesomeness in 2016 (priceless)
I learn something new every time I read one of your posts Doug. Really cool explanation for this coin. Here's to hoping you find its brother!
Great observation skills & cool coin. I wonder how much LRB coins circulated after the pictured ruler was replaced. The coin's intrinsic value was only some bronze metal and the issuing authority was gone. Were coins melted and reminted when they went back to the government as taxes, or did anyone care?
Nice portrait! Pity about the reverse... Seriously, though... while I wouldn't be surprised that this one with 'good' side circulated freely together with other properly struck coins with reverses from worn dies just slightly better than devoid of design, I think its twin without the emperor's portrait might just have been sent back for restriking. On the other hand, I think it would also be very cool (and a little less difficult) to find another coin from the same obverse die.
I believe, for the most part, old coins circulated with current as long as the denominations and weight standards allowed. These changed often in the late Roman period so it was not that the coin was politically incorrect but that it was too large or contained too much silver that caused it to be removed from circulation. There were a few cases where we suspect that a previous ruler was demonetized even though his coins could have circulated longer. The EID MAR denarii of Brutus seem to have been pulled but coins of Mark Antony stayed in circulation for almost two centuries before their low silver content was matched by current product and they are found in late hoards despite his being the loser to Augustus. Bronze coins may have circulated more but many late Roman coins that look bronze had a trace (1 to 5%) silver so melting them made sense. Those interested in the subject might start with Harl's Coinage in the Roman Economy. https://www.amazon.com/Coinage-Econ...8&qid=1482196325&sr=8-1&keywords=harl+coinage
@dougsmit- now that's totally cool. @David Atherton- I picked up Kenneth Harl's course "The Vikings", a set of audiobooks released by The Great Courses, at my public library. Enjoyed it.
Congratulations finding this Doug! I REALLY like this coin. Smashing two together during manufacture is very intriguing, and I would love to have BOTH coins, albeit probably an impossible capture.
I bought Harl's audio course on the Vikings, but returned it. He was extremely inconsistent with his pronunciation of Scandinavian names, often pronouncing the same name two different ways. Other names he just butchered. I expected much better. I will probably learn much from this video as I have a LOT to learn, and will try to keep my disappointment from the Vikings from coloring my attitude. Thanks for posting it @David Atherton. Steve
I have come across several Greek Hellenistic bronzes with the reverse (or the obverse in a few cases) "planed" as you say. Most of them had file marks where the plain surface was and this leads me to think that an iron file was used. Was the only purpose of this operation to smooth them so that they would stick on some surface? How about converting them to game tokens or even tickets of some sort, the kind where you are given a token for a pass, like crossing a river, and upon completion of the journey you hand it back to the guy waiting on the other side. Do you know anyone who wrote on these subjects?
Well, to answer the question posed, why? Because there are people out there like you and me who like odd things, things that show the minting process, not just the 'Flower of the Mint', but the 'stinking rose of the mint'. It's something I would buy, but few would appreciate.
