The Mystery of the STOLEN DIE…

Radiates of the Gallic Emperors were frequently copied in the later 3rd century and sometimes called barbarous radiates. While the copies were often made close in time to the specimens they copy, it is also believed that they were made during the 12 years between the end of Tetricus I’ s reign and the accession of Carausius. In the Cunetio Hoard, there are 2149 irregular coins (3.8% of the total) and in the Normanby Hoard 2262 imitations (4.7% of the total). Let me present you two of these barbarous radiates from other hoards:





The first imitation comes from the Saint-Germain-les-Arpajon treasure. Its weight (2.95 g) and die axis (12 o'clock) are regular while the portrait, radiate, draped and cuirassed on the obverse is of very good style. However, the awkwardness with which the few letters visible at the end of the legend, [...]S P F AVG, were engraved is undeniable. The second example comes from the treasury of Frome. It has similar characteristics. If its weight (2.57 g) is correct, the orientation of the dies at 2 o'clock is however irregular. The style of the portrait, which is also characterized by a radiate, draped and cuirassed bust, is correct although perhaps a little less good than that of the example from Saint-Germain-les-Arpajon. We find a similar end of legend, [...]CVS P F AVG, with not very academic lettering. But let us now turn our attention to the reverses of the two coins. The two Imitations whose obverses are inspired by Tetricus I show a reverse specific to the coinage of Victorinus, in this case the type FORT REDVX showing Fortuna seated on the left, a wheel behind her, holding a rudder in the right hand and a cornucopia on the left arm. Antoniniani of this type are among the rarities of Victorin's coinage. Besides the fact that the type FORT REDVX is not listed for Tetricus, the irregularity of the lettering on the obverse leads without hesitation to classify these two coins among the irregular coinage. Both probably come from the same mint since they come from the same reverse die.

But here’s what’s intriguing and also interesting: It should be noted above all that this die was used, this time in an official mint, to strike radiates baring the portrait of Victorinus !

​

The reverse FORT REDVX comes from the Cologne mint, which is particularly indicated by its association with the cuirassed bust on the obverse. According to the classification first proposed by R. Bland, it belongs to the fourth and penultimate issue produced under Victorinus at this workshop. Here’s another one from my collection but from a different reverse die :



WHAT DOES IT MEAN ?


In the case of these imitations, the fact that regular reverse dies are associated with imitated obverse dies would imply that one or more clandestine workshop may have had official dies. A strike in a official mint is difficult to envisage because, in this case, why wouldn't official duty dies not be used at the same time? We seem to be dealing here with dies that were stolen from an official workshop. It should be noted that archaeological discoveries have not, to date, provided proof that dies could have been smuggled out of one of the two workshops in the hands of Gallic usurpers. Under what circumstances could such thefts have taken place, knowing the high degree of surveillance of a mint? Indeed, the two coins were struck with dies used by the Cologne mint at the end of the reign of Victorinus and the beginning of the reign of Tetricus, between the end of 270 AD and the summer of 272 AD. The publishers of the Cunetio treasures and Normanby have established that the two Gallic mints were united at the mint of Trier at the end of the reign of Tetricus.

(Two of my favorite Victorinus’ imitations




Therefore, it is possible to envisage that the dies could have been recovered at the time of the dismantling of the Cologne mint, an operation conducive to loss or theft. Of course, the few specimens collected here are not enough to affirm it and dies could have been stolen at another time, for example during the debacle which followed the surrender of Tetricus in the spring of 274 AD or even on the occasion of the transfer of the Trier workshop to Lyon by Aurelian in the autumn of the same year. In the current state of documentation, no official obverse die can be associated with an imitative reverse. We can also assume that the obverse dies, bearing the portrait of the Emperor and therefore a high symbolic charge, were subject to reinforced security measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. According to C. H. V. Sutherland ( he was talking about nummi from the tetrarchic era), obverse dies would thus have been "collected each evening to be counted, checked and deposited in a central chest, while the reverse dies remained locked up in the dispensaries. »

But why were they using an exceptional type of reverse ? One could imagine that these old dies intended for the striking of occasional series could have been kept and stored separately pending possible reuse. Another possible reason must also be taken into consideration: while this exceptional type stand out and is easily identifiable, the pairing of a counterfeit die and an official die from a current series would have a better chance of passing unnoticed. When one of the two sides of a coin is of a dubious style, we generally tend to classify it among imitations without thinking twice. The two imitative radiates presented here therefore shed light on a little-known facet of this local coinage with its very varied modalities. They suggest that official dies, in this case reverse dies used at the Cologne mint under Victorinus and Tetricus, may have been stolen and then reused for clandestine production. The small sample proposed here naturally needs to be complemented by future discoveries or by the re-examination of old finds in order to be able to establish with more certainty the circumstances in which such a practice, however marginal, could have taken place.
So what do you think ? Do you know similar examples of « stolen dies » ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No...
Great write up, learned a lot of new info

I still do not have any coin from Gallic Empire. They are super nice, but very $$$$$$
My favs are Postumus/ Laelinus/ Victorinus....

 

I have one that i strongly believe to be struck from stolen dies of Claudius ii.
The Obverse looks official to me, the Reverse is a bit of a puzzle though.
It shows as a Tetricus AVGG in the picture but, there is evidence of the flan being used multiple times OR a Die that has been reworked multiple times.
I like to to let my mind run away with me and imagine that these dies were once a part of the Felicissimus story.
It is unfortunately one of those things that you need in hand to fully understand how many oddities are on the Reverse.

Medal alignment, 2.43g 17mm ( PM me if you want it, GRATIS )

 

Some interesting ideas! However, how can we definitively say that the obverses were unofficial? The coinage of Tetricus is some of the most inconsistent when it comes to quality of the whole of imperial coinage. The obverse artistry doesn’t look far off to me and there are lots of examples of coins that are mules of emperors with old reverses. Anyway, the idea is interesting but how can it be either further supported or refuted? Either way, a good post!

Additionally, it does look like there is a listing for this coin at OCRE, although with no pictured examples (just one with text that IS however listed as a contemporary copy!). http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.5.tet_i.74

Another follow up edit… I found one that was for sale here that includes some supporting information that believes both dies to be official:

“Tetricus I Antoninianus, struck ca. 271 - 275 AD at mint I.
Obv: IMP C TETRICVS [P F AVG], radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: [FORTVNA RE]VX, Fotuna seated left, holding cornucopiae and rudder, wheel behind.
1,93 g, 17 mm.

Extremely Rare, no further specimens known to us.

This coin combines a Tetricus I Obverse with a reverse of Victorinus. The reverse seems to be die-linked to AGK plate 17 No. 6a. The style is perfectly official.
It seems most likely to be a contemporary "mint-forgery",struck under improper using of an old Victorinus reverse-die in combination with a mint I obverse-die of Tetricus I by the mint employees.

This specimen is published in:
S. Sondermann, Zwei neue Antoniniane des Tetricus I / II aus Rs.-Stempeln ihrer Vorgänger, NNB 05/2010.”
https://www.vcoins.com/fr/stores/se...ictorinus__extremely_rare/511222/Default.aspx

 

Very interesting discovery indeed. The reverse of Sondermann’s coin is a die-match with the 3 first coins discussed in the OP ! I agree that the style of the obverse seems official, but a match with another official Tetricus would be necessary to confirm it. About the specimens from Saint-Germain-les-Arpajon and Frome, these are certainly barbaric and were classified as irregular coins by all the experts who have examined them in detail. The references in OCRE are based on the old RIC V, which is completely obsolete regarding Gallic rulers. I’d say that at least a dozen types listed for Victorinus just doesn’t exist or are known as imitations… Hoping new finds in the future will enlighten us.

 

Dominic, This is an interesting article with excellent research ! Lets be honest, no official organization is immune from corruption, including Roman mints . I'm sure a lot of nefarious activity was going on in this period of hyper inflation .

 

Hans Von Aulock, in one of his provincial mint studies, find a reverso die that was apparently reused i think fifty years later, at a mint that struck only small issues of coins separated from each other by long period of time. I check for reference later.

 

This is very fascinating. Theft of official dies is certainly a plausible explanation. However, I wonder if the explanation of these mules of "official" and "unofficial" dies is not a lot more mundane. Indeed, I can think of two relatively simple explanations for these mules and for barbarous radiates in general.

1. Expert die-engraver were probably in short supply, especially in volatile border regions with lots of internal and external upheaval. If such experts were suddenly unavailable, the die engraving may have passed temporarily to less experienced people either within the official mint or at auxiliary workshops. It would be no surprise if these less experienced workmen would use up whatever was still lying around in "official" dies.

I collect coins of the Teutonic Order of knights in Prussia, where similar events are reported in the documents. At some point in the 15th century, an official of the Order complained that his mint workers had died or fled during a military conflict and that he was left with half-trained replacements so that he resorted to hiring a gold smith and his staff to continue mint operations.

2. Another simple explanation is that the expert die engravers of the mint were at times unable to produce a sufficient number of new dies. The coins of the Gallic empire are inflation money, that was produced in large quantities during a short period of time.

During the German and the Hungarian hyperinflations of the 1920s and 1950s, respectively, the governments were unable to produce bank notes to keep up with price increases. Hence, they applied stamps on existing notes to mark up their nominal value.

In conclusion, I think the phenomenon of mules, mules of "official" and "unoffical" dies and of "barbarous radiates" in general, is best explained by the challenges of producing large quantities of dies in a very short period of time under the conditions of rapid inflation. I think they show that the mints were at times overwhelmed by the need for new minting dies and mint officials had to resort to alternatives to alleviate the problem.

 

Below is a coin from my collection, which was almost certainly struck from stolen dies.
The coin was struck from official dies, which the Goths obtained during the sack of Alexandria Troas in AD 262. The dies were overused and partially recut. The dies were originally intended for the minting of provincial bronze coins.

 

Wow, first time I see this one. Were you able to find a die-match with an « official » issue ?

 

I have never tried, but will have look. Another pair of dies from Alexandria Troas with a horse on the reverse also fell into the hands of the Goths who used them to strike gold coins.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5992341

The link above tells the whole story of the stolen dies from Alexandria Troas.

Btw, my coin was found in Vinnitskaya oblast, Pogrebishe, Ukraine.

 

I had a very quick look at acsearch and found this coin. I think, at first glance the reverse die may be a match to my gold coin.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8954614

 

nice + imo easily one of the most interesting ancient coins..




+ they used the dies so much that the obverse was eventually too worn out + a replacement had to be made..