Why are so many ancients so far off center?

Feel like I should know this one but I don't. Why are so many ancients struck so far off from their center? How could they screw up so bad? Is it just because they got lazy and careless from making so many?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I certainly don't think it's laziness.. seeing that they were mostly minted by slaves I doubt they were allowed to be lazy. Being manually produced .. while at the same time being under great pressure to produce as quickly as possible (sometimes in travelling mints) leads to poor workmanship. Especially at times of war... which was pretty much all the time. I believe the weight and purity would have been the prime focus rather than strike.
I would also wager that the slaves doing the "striking" would be of the less skilled variety, easily replaceable and thrown into the job if they had finished other tasks (untrained) - as opposed to those artisans carving the die or those skilled workers creating and preparing the flans.

That is my take - open to being corrected by more experienced members here.

 

I think it has to do with the way they were struck. At an ANA Seminar in CO they were striking coins the old by-hand way. In order to make a decent looking piece, the operation was very slow because they had to be sure the two dies and planchet lined up to begin with. If the hammer was not brought down perfectly that could also cause so slip to the design.

 

Three ways to make coins, fast, cheap and good...choose two

 

Made manually. Clavdivs, Insider, and Kentucky posted pretty good answers. Also "ancients" covers a very broad geographical and long period about 600BC to 1400AD so mint quality varied from culture to culture and time. Part of collecting ancients is finding the coin that meets your criteria for being collectable. Perhaps you're ok with a missing legend in exchange for a well struck bust or interesting reverse. Maybe you need coins that are centered extremely well. Oftentimes you'll also have to sacrifice something to get a coin, like poor centering because otherwise it would be out of your budget.

Another reason, there was no collar like in modern minting.

 

Are you calling this one off-center?

 

Exactly! I wish I had said that! The fact is that we can find examples of each of these at some time and place. There are coin types that appear to have been struck with care and types that suggest the boss was standing over the workers threatening execution if they did not double production. I often wonder if all 'well struck' types really were struck well or if they remelted errors rather than accepting every coin as it fell from the die. I see no way we will ever know.

 

Off-center ancients really appeal to me. I cannot defend it - it's like some weird numismatic fetish. But I really like them - and they are often heavily discounted so I can afford them. Three of my favorites:

 

It seems to me that some types of coins are found off-center more than others. For instance, you don't see many off-center sestertii. Or am I off-base with this off-center observation?

I recently got this Faustina I sestertius with an off-center obverse - it isn't very often you see this much of the beaded border is it? Again, just a stray thought, based on looking at a few things...

 

These sesteri I wouldn't call off-center but the flans are a little irregular.

 

Lots of beading showing too - shows what I know! Nice coins. I like 'em.

 

I was under the impression that the obverse and reverse dies were hinged together--at least, that theory has been proposed in other discussions about the minting process. But this coin of Aurelian below shows that, with this example, that wasn't the case. There was probably a fixed, mounted die that the blank was placed on top of and then covered with a second die and then struck:

Billon Antoninianus
Cyzicus mint
Obv: IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG
Rev: ORIENS AVG - Sol, standing left, raising right hand and holding globe in left; captive at feet
XXL in exergue
RIC 360
22mm, 3.8g.

 

Please remember that there is no such thing as the 'ancient' way of doing things. Some dies were hinged; some anvil dies were concave making it easier to seat a blank. Some coins were struck hot making tongs needed; some were cold. I suspect at some point someone invented other ways of aligning dies but such technology may never have become widespread. Finding a coin of Aurelian which was not hinged means nothing when studying the coins of Tetricus (let alone Archaic or medieval coins).

 

Perhaps, as happened with US coins, errors (many formerly considered as junk) as yours will become very popular.

 

When are you going to take the green off?

 

I wasn't planning on removing the green - it doesn't appear to be bronze disease (hard, not powdery). I'll keep an eye on it, though.

 

One of my favorite “off-centers”:

RIC V (2), Carausius, Antoninianus, No. 5


IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P AVG .............................................. PAX AVGGG | S P
(M L XXXI)

Cuirassed, radiate, bust
London Mint.
Struck by Carausius in the name of Diocletian.
3.8 gm.

Added via Edit:

A buying and selling anecdote:

I bought this coin from Tom Cederlind several years ago. He brought it to a coin show for me to look at because he knew I had a great interest in Carausian coins - especially unusual issues. I was immediately captivated by the wonderful portrait of Diocletian and the figure of Pax on the reverse. I wanted this coin. Following is a very rough recap of our bargaining negotiation conversation (my paraphrasing):

(Me) Well I like this coin very much Thomas - how much do you want for it?
(TC, without batting an eye) $600
(Me, expressing surprise) Aw, c’mon Tom, that is way too much for a coin that is struck so far off the flan - I could not go more than a couple of hundred dollars for it.
(TC, still not batting an eye and pretty much like this) no James, that will not do - you know coins of this series are very hard to come by in even poor condition and you also know that the portrait and reverse depiction are exceptional - $600 is what I want.
…………… after much bickering Tom remained inflexible on the price and I passed on the coin.

About two years later at a coin show in Phoenix:

TC had a table but it was manned by a young man I didn’t know (I don’t think Tom was Personally at the show) - this coin was still on display and available - I don’t remember if it had a price tag on it , but I asked that young man if they would accept an offer of $300 (or so) for it. He said yes and I bought it! But I fretted about it being so far off center and I eventually sold it - I don’t remember what I sold it for or to who, but I since have had severe seller’s remorse and wish I had it back. I believe Doug Smith now owns that coin - I think he paid a lot less for it than I did for he is a much shrewder buyer than I am!

I actually do not mind off-center coins.

 

I think the answer lies in the difficulty of the process and the minting goals. I think they were worried about the number of coins per pound (As) of silver and number of coins produced per day. Coins that were off center, brokage, unevenly struck or from worn dies circulated for a long time. The brokage below circulated a long time (note how the innie has more hair details than the outie).



See the recent posting on minting tools. It would be hard, and dangerous, to hold a small, hot flan; the punch die and strike with a small pointed hammer.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bankers-marks-juno-moneta.344581/#post-3655709

 

Ya know, I really don't fret much over if it is "well" centered, grade, or other "modern" attributes being applied to an Ancient coin. Rather, I enjoy the History it represents, and if that coin "speaks" or jumps out at me.

Here is one that I just noticed is "off-centered"...

Why did I capture this one?
1) History: Antony and Octavian issue before they warred upon each other.
2) Quinarius is a scarcer denomination.
3) Yeah, its COOL.


Roman Imperiatorial
Marc Antony & Octavian
AR Quinarius 1.58g
Military Mint Gaul 39BCE
Concordia r
Hands clasped caduceus
Craw 529-4b; Sear 1575; Syd-1195

Comment: removed from the silly plastic modern Tomb (as if it needed "modern" protection after 2000 years in existence!)