The last coin I showed a couple of days ago was an anepigraphic denarius with no reverse legend. So, obviously, I would be attracted to this one, which does away with the entire reverse, right? Or, maybe, I just really really like these Kevin specials. ROMAN REPUBLIC Uniface error strike AR Denarius. 3.96g, 19mm. Rome mint, 109-108 BC. L. Flaminius Chilo, moneyer. cf. Crawford 302/1. O: Helmeted head of Roma right; behind, ROMA and below chin, X. R: Blank. So what on earth happened here? It seems likely to me that two blanks got stuck to each other and were then struck together, one receiving the obverse design and the other the reverse. At some point they became uncoupled, and then either escaped quality control, or were just allowed to leave the mint as they were. Perhaps this one survived as a curiosity kept by some Roman lucky enough to find it tendered to him. Perhaps some day I'll be lucky enough to find its twin with the blank obverse. Unlikely, but one can hope! If anyone has any theories about how this RR oddity came about, I'd be keen to hear them. And, of course, please feel free to share your own examples of ancient mint quality control fails.
That Kevin... what a derp. I think your theory is likely correct. Cool coin! Now the hunt begins for its blank/reverse match! Vegas is giving very long odds on that .
Long term members may recall when I found my Valerian. I wonder how many pairs were made and how few still exist. Now we have two heads, someone needs to post a tails.
I wonder if mint workers did notice when these errors were struck and if they knowingly restruck only the coin which showed only the reverse, letting the obverse/blank coins go into circulation. Maybe they felt the important side was the obverse and viewed restriking the obverse/blank coins as less necessary. Have any of you ever seen one of these with a blank/reverse combo?
For a second, I thought I had your obverse die match – yet, that turns out not to be the case. Still, my snub-nosed portrait is quite similar to yours: Roman Republic, moneyer: Lucius Flaminius Chilo, denarius, 109–108 BC, Rome mint. Obv: helmeted head of Roma right, X in front, [RO]MA behind (graffiti at 1 o'clock?). Rev: Victory with wreath in biga right, L FLAMIN - CILO in exergue. 17mm, 3.74 g. Ref: Crawford 302/1; RSC Flaminia 1.
My Gallienus version remained stuck together (6.29g): The double flan coin is on the left, and a regular ant on the right. (Sorry, Z... I know you want this coin. )
That makes sense to me, and though I haven't made a thorough search, I've yet to come across a reverse-only example. The tails of the one below might be mistaken for a heads, but in any case, I haven't seen it. And, if TIF's theory is correct, then you and me and the Heritage cataloger who notes that "somewhere out there may be a uniface Brutus denarius showing only a reverse type..." are just indulging in wishful thinking. Not my coin: Yup, and you know where to send it to if you ever tire of it. I looked at one or two hundred examples yesterday looking for a match and I counted more than a dozen times I thought I might have found one, but no luck yet, though many were very close in style.
Wow, how did that happen? Let's just take a quick look at the video tape form the Flan Quality Control office. KEVIN!!!
I recall musing some time ago on another error thread that mint workers may have hidden and covered-up such errors, so they could leave the work day with both hands intact. I imagine them shoving error coins deep into the bucket of fresh strikes so as to go unnoticed by their supervisor while keeping up with production quotas.
