A VERY tight brockage (2 coins for the price of 1!)

Here is a very different sort of "double-antoninianus" from the Tacitus series that zumbly recently posted about here. The coin in question is one of the scarcer types from the Cologne (Colonia Agrippinensis) mint:

Obv. GALLIENVS.P.F.AVG, Radiate and cuirassed bust of Gallienus to right. Rev. VIRT GALLIENI AVG, Gallienus advancing right, holding spear and shield, and treading upon fallen enemy to right. RIC 54 (Joint reign with Valerian, listed as Lugdunum), dated to 258-9:


The first weird thing about this coin is its weight: 6.29g. Way too much for an antoninianus of Gallienus from this period! Is it a fake? Let's check out the edge (this coin on the left, an ordinary Gallienus ant. from Cologne on the right):



Is that a casting seam on a double-thick fake??

No, it's a join between two flans struck on top of each other. This coin is double weight and double-thickness because it's a brockage error where the two coins never separated! Here's another shot showing the join between flans, on a slightly thinner part of the coin, where the join spreads onto the face:


As you can see, there's no separating these two (not that I would ever try). Always the twain shall meet! I can just imagine a legionary trying to buy a 2-ant. loaf of bread with this coin... or should that be "these coins"?

I don't think I've ever seen another stuck-together brockage before, but I would like to hear of any, and of course see them. Otherwise, post your Cologne mint Gallienus coins, your stuck-together coins, and your weird mint errors!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Seems way too heavy. Mine is worn, but less than half the weight:

GALLIENUS
Antoninianus
OBVERSE: GALLIENVS dot P dot F dot AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust left, holding spear over shoulder and shield on left arm
REVERSE: VIRT GALLIENI AVG, Emperor walking right, holding transverse sceptre (point forwards) and round shield, treading down fallen enemy lying on ground before him
Struck at Milan, 258-259 AD
2.94g, 22mm
RIC 54 left[j]

 

Wow, extremely cool - I've never seen a brockage with the coins stuck together. You are going to make @dougsmit green with envy.

 

I have a heavy Gallienus, but not like that.


Gallienus (253 - 268 A.D.)
AR Antoninianus
O: IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS AVG, Radiate and cuirassed bust right.
R: IOVI CONSERVA, Jupiter standing left, head turned right, holding scepter in right and thunderbolt in left.
5.1g
24mm
RIC 143F (Rome) Sear 10237

Heavy for type.

 

Wow very cool

 

I believe using the term brockage here is incorrect but that certainly is a great coin. A brockage happens when a coin is struck normally but sticks,unnoticed, in the upper die. It then becomes the upper die for the striking of the next coin. That next coin is the brockage.

This coin was two blanks that stuck together and were hammered together fusing them into one, doubly thick, coin. If pried apart, I would not expect to see a brockage design on one half and a normal coin on the other. I would expect to see something more like the Valerian antoninianus below which, I believe was like the OP coin but separated from its partner rather than being fused with it (not hit as hard???).

I agree with John Anthony and Kermit the frog. It is cool and it isn't easy being green.

I am going way out on a limb and mentioning a question that has long bothered me and not been discussed in polite literature. There are many brockages. Each brockage was caused by a coin sticking in the die and being used as the die for the brockage coin. Should we not, then, have coins that were used to produce the brockages? What would they look like? I say the original design would be a bit damaged or flattened by being pressed into that second flan. I also say that the entire flan should be spread out a bit by being struck again making the flan flatter; cracks are a possibility. What I would expect would look a bit like the Septimius Severus Emesa mint denarius below. The reverse is boldly struck and the flan is flattened and cracked. The obverse is a bit mushy as it it might have been pushed into something reducing its detail. Certainly there are other answers for why this coin might look like it does but this coin is the best match for what I might expect a brockage mother to look like. I can not prove it. I would love to see other candidates for coins that made brockages or hear other answers explaining the phenomenon.

 

I love finds like this that demonstrate the technical aspects of minting! Very cool!

 

Thanks, @dougsmit, a should have thought of that possibility! Couldn't it still possibly be a brockage, though? A normally struck coin that stuck in either the obverse or reverse die, and then stuck onto the next flan... which would have been either an obverse or reverse brockage, except that the two coins never separated.

Maybe you are right that the error is probably due to two blank flans that were struck and fused together in one blow... must be the case with your Valerian. But why would that be more likely for my coin?

I like your theory of your Sept. Sev... we have probably all handled brockage-producing coins without knowing it. And maybe putting them back into the pick-bin as having problems! I will pay more attention to this possibility now...

 

Very interesting post. My grasp on the technical side of brockages is nil. But a while back in a lot of denarii I got a truly horrible Lucilla Diana Lucifera denarius that has suffered some damage. Probably some Visigoth bashing it with a hammer, but given Doug's comments I thought maybe something happened during its manufacture?

I'm afraid to handle it much - it looks as if it will fall apart at any moment. It weighs 2.63 grams (not bad, given the givens!)

Warning: very ugly coin below:

 

Even though I focus a lot on Lucilla coins, that is rough/interesting at the same time.

 

It most certainly could and the why to prove it would require destroying the coin. Prying might be difficult but the whole thing could be mounted in a matrix and sawed into thin sections which could determine whether there was detain in the middle or not. You could cut crosswise and probably tell. You could shave (microtome?) successive layers from the surface and see if an outline emerges. When finished you would know and the coin would be no more. I prefer to say, "I wonder."

If I had to come up with a wild guess as to why your coin fused and mine did not it might involve whether or not there was some foreign matter (grease???) between the two or if the alignment of the flans may have been better on one than the other. There is also the possibility that yours may have been hotter when struck causing them to fuse better. How may ways can we say that we do not know? We can come up with theories. We even could fund a massive study trying to duplicate conditions but probably making errors that would invalidate results. We have great minds investigating questions of theoretical physics and having issues 'proving' theories. Theoretical numismatics hardly seems likely to become the next thing they investigate. Meanwhile, enjoy the coin. It is a keeper.

 

Thanks, Doug. I will!!

 

That is a very cool error! I've never seen one before. A keeper indeed!

 

Where else can we see a "common" mistake from that long ago?

The history tied to coins, ancient, or otherwise, is as good as it gets.

 

I bid on and failed to win this coin and am also a little green with envy. I recall the auction description pointing out the weight and raising the possibility that it was struck on two flans that had stuck together. Very cool score, and I’m glad it went to CT family .

 

Now that is weird...and awesome.

 

Thats really neat

 

I think we really need @icerain's famous stuck-together tets in this thread...

 

Well if you insist

 

Hooray!! I love that coin/those coins...

We should start the Coinjoined Coins Collectors' Club.