Here's a coin from 4th-3rd century BC Etruria, uncertain mint, with only one side struck. AR 10 units (c 4 gm) Obv: Laurel head of Apollo(?) left, hare behind Rev: plain
Etrurian coins were intentionally produced that way. @AngelDeath is looking for accidental one side strikes. The only accidental cause I can think of would be if two flans got accidentally stacked before striking - in which case you'd wind up with two coins with one side each (I've never seen one). A brockage is close, but that would still have devices on both sides, with one side a mirror incuse of the other.
I have showed this Valerian antoninianus before and believe it is an example of what Carausius describes. Note the reverse has a very slight depression very roughly shadowing the obverse design filtered through the thickness of the flan. At the lower right you can see a raised section showing that the two flans were not stacked perfectly straight on top of one another. At the same time as this was made there should have been a reverse only coin but the two of them were separated soon after striking. This is not a filed off reverse since that would show marks and would not have the depression. Were both accepted in commerce?
No, you can see an unevenness in the blank section that is the only way you can tell this was caused buy the stacked flans rather than being filed off or struck on a flat surface intentionally.
I do not think this was a blank reverse, rather it was probably worn off... RI Augustus Quinarius - possibly Asia Recepta - blank wore-off-rev And like @ancientcoinguru , I have a few of those SINGLE-SIDED Etrurian coins... but those were purposefully struck that way.
How were those made, Anoob? There are quite a few types from that general time and place that have very weak reverses but I am unclear on how you make it come out that way. Some almost look like one die was use on a semi-flexible surface (leather, wood???) but some have a little detail that method would not explain.
